Supporting Organization Agility HR 8 94 ENG

Translated from German to English - www.onlinedoctranslator.
com
Table of contents VIII
Table of contents
Declaration of truth.................................................. ................................................ II
Publication declaration for the master's thesis in the MAS HCM................................................. ....III
Foreword ................................................ ................................................ ..................IV
Management summary ................................................ .......................................... VI
Table of contents ................................................. ................................................ VIII
List of illustrations ................................................ ........................................... X
List of tables ................................................ ................................................ XI
Abbreviations................................................. ................................................ ........XII
1 Introduction............................................... ................................................ ..........13
Clarification of the question .......................................................... ...................................15
Structuring and methodology ................................................ .............................16
Target group and benefits ................................................ ...................................17
2. Agility in the context of corporate development......................................18
Introduction to the terms Lean, Scrum Framework and Agile Manifesto........18
Requirements of agile teams on the organization ...........................................27
Areas of tension in the area of performance management ..........................................29
Competence Management ................................................ ...................................34
HC Marketing................................................. ................................................ .........36
Segmentation of companies for interviews .......................................... 37
3. Presentation of the qualitative survey results ..........................................37
Understanding agility................................................... ...................................38
Performance Management................................................ ................................39
Employee appraisals and performance appraisals................................................... ....39
Objective ................................................ ................................................ ..........42

Table of contents IX
Feedback ................................................ ................................................ .............44
Competence Management ................................................ ................................45
Career paths ................................................ ................................................ .......46
HC Marketing area ................................................ ..........................................47
Recruitment ................................................ ................................................ ........47
Evaluation and discussion of the interview results................................................48
Understanding of agility ................................................ ................................................49
Performance management ................................................ ...................................51
Competence Management ................................................ ...................................58
HC Marketing................................................. ................................................ .........59
4. Derivation of recommendations for action................................................. ...........61
Understanding agility and agile working in order to optimally support it............62
Employee appraisals for agile teams................................................... ................69
Goal setting in an agile environment .......................................... .............................77
Shifting control logic in agile companies ..........................80
Recruiting employees for agile teams ..........................................84
5. Outlook ................................................ ................................................ ............87
Influence of corporate culture on agility .......................................... ......87
Agile transformation of the HR department................................................ ..................91
6. Final word................................................... ................................................ ......93
7. References .......................................... ................................................95
8. Appendix I................................................ ................................................ .............98
Cover letter for companies ................................................ ..........................................98
Interview Guide ................................................ ..........................................99
9. Appendix II................................................ ................................................ ..........100

List of illustrations X
Agile Manifesto - Twelve Principles of Agile Software Development (Seventeen

first signatories, 2001)................................... ................................................ ....100
The Manifesto for Agile HR describes the core values of lean (Eyholzer, How can
HR adopt an Agile mindset at Adventures with Agile, 2015, Min. 15:23) ..........100
Ten things HR doesn't want to hear about agility from the team's perspective
(Eyholzer, 2015) (translated from English)....................... ..........................101
List of keywords for topic-specific internet research................102
Further research topics in keywords ..........................................102
List of illustrations
Figure 1: Overview of agile corporate transformation changed according to (Häusling &
von Gloeden, 2013, p. 62). ................................................ ...................................14
Figure 2: Waterfall model of sequential development. ...................................21
Figure 3: Classic sequential development versus Scrum according to (Stefan & Wolf,
2015, p. 2). ................................................ ................................................ ..........22
Figure 4: Agile Manifesto (Seventeen initial signatories, 2001). .............................23
Figure 5: Overview of Scrum modified according to Mountain Goat Software. ....................25
Figure 6: Strategic areas of action for human capital management added

with areas to be examined (Meyer-Ferreira, 2015, p. 32). ................27
Figure 7: Scrum Team Roles; a) simple representation; b) constellation with

different line managers. ................................................ ....................35
Figure 8: HR model by Dave Ulrich supplemented by tasks and those responsible

Roles in an agile environment (Ulrich, 1997). ................................................ ................65
Figure 9: Revision/adjustment of the MAG process. ...................................71
Figure 10: Deming circle. ................................................ ..........................................73
Figure 11: Agility flips the organizational pyramid. According to (Häusling, Rutz,
Oimann, & Oebbeke, 2014, p. 20) modified. ................................................ ......89
Table directory XI
Table directory
Table 1: Collection of questions about agility in general ........................................... ..........................29
Table 2: Collection of performance management questions – employee appraisals area

and performance reviews. ................................................ ................................31
Table 3: Collection of performance management questions – area of target agreement. ..33
Table 4: Collection of Performance Management questions – Feedback area. .............34
Table 5: Competence Management question collection – career paths area. .......36
Table 6: Collection of questions for HC marketing – recruitment area.................................37
Table 7: Answers for understanding agility. ................................................ ....39
Table 8: Answers to the area of performance reviews and performance reviews. .42
Table 9: Answers to the area of goal setting. ................................................ ..........44
Table 10: Responses to the feedback area................................................. ...................45
Table 11: Answers to the area of career paths and role understanding. ................47
Table 12: Responses to the area of recruitment. ................................................ ......48
Table 13: Agile versus classic performance management according to (Gloger &
Häusling, 2011, p. 99) modified. ................................................ ..........................57
Table 14: Topic areas and methods for agile working environments
to get to know. ................................................ ................................................ ..62
Table 15: Competency matrix weighted according to HR roles, where: xxx = expert; xx =
Professional; x = Basics corresponds to................................................... ...........................68
Table 16: Cost estimate for employee appraisals and potential benefits. .....70
Table 17: Internal control logic according to (Meyer-Ferreira, 2015, p. 151)

shortened and supplemented with examples. ................................................ .............................82
Table 18: Overview of various definitions of agility in an organizational context.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Abbreviations XII
Abbreviations
Fig. - Illustration
e.g. - for example
concerning. - with reference to
or. - respectively
H.C - Human Capital
HCM - Human Capital Management
MR - Human Resources
HRM - Human Resource Management
M.A - Employees
MbO - Management by Objectives
P.E - Human resources development
P.O - Product Owner
resp. - respectively
S. - Page
SM - Scrum Masters
so-called. - so-called)
SW - software
TPS - Toyota Production System
tw. - partially
et al - among other things
va - above all
see. - compare
Introduction 13
1 Introduction
The modern working world, its organizations and employees are shaped by numerous internal and external influencing factors. In
addition to the ever-increasing globalization of companies, the degree of complexity in the working environment and products is
continually increasing in many industries. Added to this is the advancing digitalization in many industries, which brings with it no less
drastic changes. As early as 1958, Leonard E. Read described in an essay that the production of a simple pencil is a complex process and
can no longer be accomplished by a single person (Read, 1958). A more current example is multinational project teams that operate
across multiple locations and time zones around the globe. Another - but often forgotten - factor is the constantly increasing
expectations of customers, which has a direct impact on innovation cycles in many industries. The development and innovation cycles
for many products in the area of software and hardware development are becoming increasingly shorter. If 10 years ago it took 6
months for a software release, today daily release cycles are common practice in many industries (e.g. portal operators). The
Intelligence Unit of the Economist magazine puts it aptly: “Driven by even greater globalization and technological innovation as well as
rocketing consumer expectations, Europe's businesses need to move faster” (Intelligence Unit, 2014, p. 2). The development and
innovation cycles for many products in the area of software and hardware development are becoming increasingly shorter. If 10 years
ago it took 6 months for a software release, today daily release cycles are common practice in many industries (e.g. portal operators).
The Intelligence Unit of the Economist magazine puts it aptly: “Driven by even greater globalization and technological innovation as well
as rocketing consumer expectations, Europe's businesses need to move faster” (Intelligence Unit, 2014, p. 2). The development and
innovation cycles for many products in the area of software and hardware development are becoming increasingly shorter. If 10 years
ago it took 6 months for a software release, today daily release cycles are common practice in many industries (e.g. portal operators).
The Intelligence Unit of the Economist magazine puts it aptly: “Driven by even greater globalization and technological innovation as well
as rocketing consumer expectations, Europe's businesses need to move faster” (Intelligence Unit, 2014, p. 2).
Many companies are also confronted with high cost pressure, relocation of parts of
the company to low-wage countries and a lack of highly qualified employees in
individual areas of the company. There are also demographic effects, such as an
increasing aging population in many western industrialized nations and a strong
population growth in countries such as China and India. All of these effects have
long been described by Gary Hamel, John Kotter and Peter Drucker in their
publications and ultimately result in the realization that “... our previous
understanding of a structural organization cannot lead to success” (Kasch, 2013, p.
48). One response of many organizations to these changes and the external
influencing factors are strategies to increase efficiency, the adaptability and often
also the speed of innovation. These strategies often stand in contrast to the rigid,
established processes, hierarchies and values that are still widespread in many
companies, both in the structure and in the operational organization. Examples of
this are long decision-making processes due to established hierarchies and so-
called silo mentality
Introduction 14
arises when parts of the company optimize primarily towards their own goals, but
have already lost sight of the whole. Success on the market is usually directly
related to the way in which change is implemented and the ability to adapt.
Agile methods and strategies are increasingly replacing long-term plans
One way to adapt to changing conditions is to gradually move away from long-
term plans and replace them with iterative-incremental approaches and shorter
planning horizons. The latter often goes hand in hand with a streamlining of
processes and internal structures. In the literature, this is often described using the
collective terms “Lean” and “Agile”, combined with the terms “management”,
development” and, for example, “production”. Ultimately, many companies expect
“greater success in the implementation of projects and in the development of
innovative products” (Häusling & von Gloeden, 2013, p. 62).
In this context, agility (Latin agilis: nimble; mobile) is equated with fast, adaptive,
flexible and dynamic, which is ultimately intended to increase adaptability and lead
to the expected competitive advantage.
However, it is often forgotten that the decision to implement agile processes in the
operational and/or organizational structure can lead to significant structural
changes and therefore also have potential effects on the organizational structure
and corporate culture. In addition, it should not be forgotten that the human
factor, i.e. the cooperation between different employee groups, plays a crucial role
in the success of the transformation.
processes)and)
Structures
classic) agile)
organization organization
Change
culture)and) Competencies
Behave
Figure 1: Overview of agile corporate transformation changed according to (Häusling & von
Gloeden, 2013, p. 62).
It is therefore not surprising that the transformation from a classic to an agile

company usually involves far-reaching changes
Introduction 15
in the areas of processes and structures, culture and behavior as well as in the area of
competencies.
If this process is to be successful, various functions of the organizational and

operational organization must be involved in order to make it successful. These
include specialists from the HR departments who can play a decisive role in
shaping the transformation with their specialist knowledge. In addition to a basic
understanding of agility, they also need to know the needs of the organization,
which differ depending on the transformation phase.
Clarification of the question

There are numerous publications in the literature on the topic of agility in
connection with management, (lean) production, development and leadership.
However, there are very few specific publications that address the combination of
agility and human capital management or the role of HR in such organizations. In
particular, there is a lack of descriptions of real operational practice. A closer
examination of the topic is particularly worthwhile because the implementation of
agile methods and/or processes often leads to HR processes and/or HR processes
in addition to the management instruments. Personnel instruments need to be
reviewed and rethought in individual areas. HR should be able to
The focus of the work is therefore the evaluation of the necessary support
needs of agile or semi-agile corporate structures by the HR organization,
guided by three working hypotheses:
1. The working methods and needs of agile employee groups are largely
unknown to those responsible in the HR departments.
2. Agile teams are inadequately supported by existing HR processes.
3. Corporate culture significantly influences the level of agility and the ability of
a company to adapt to changing conditions.
The analysis of the possible need for action and support should touch on all three
areas of human capital management. In order to limit the scope of the work, the
focus should be on the derivation of concrete
Introduction 16
Support measures and sensible Changes in the Area

Performance management lies. In the areas of competency management and HC
marketing, only the topics of development paths for employees of agile teams or
recruitment will be discussed in more detail.
The outlook should mainly focus on outlining the role of HR in an agile or deal with
a semi-agile organizational context. The focus here is on the possibilities with
which HR can profitably get involved in an agile corporate culture.
Structuring and methodology
To address the question, the work is divided into four parts, which build on each
other thematically but differ methodologically.
In thefirst partIn addition to a basic introduction to the topic of agility, the work is
also intended to take a closer look at it in the context of corporate development.
This with the focus on better understanding not only the way they work but also
the needs of employees in agile teams. In preparation for the main part of the
work, a questionnaire should be developed on this basis regarding the potential
need for support from the HR organization. The methodological focus here is on a
subsumption of the relevant literature, whereby content from Web 2.0 and
recordings of specialist lectures should also be used if possible.
In thesecond partThe aim of the work is to evaluate the HR department's potential

need for action and support in an agile corporate context. Methodologically, direct,
qualitative feedback from HR managers at various companies should be collected
and evaluated exploratively through expert interviews. In order to enable topic-
focused discussions, the questions are limited to selected content from the three
areas of human capital management. The primary focus is on examining existing
areas of tension and identifying areas in which HR can usefully contribute its skills.
In addition to experiences and problems, adjustments that have already been
made or planned to HR processes, roles or responsibilities should also be found
out. For this reason, a mix of open and closed questions is used. When selecting
organizations, care must be taken to ensure that they are companies that use agile
methods in product development at least in individual areas and, ideally, are
technology companies. This plays
Introduction 17
It does not matter whether the products are services or physical products.
Based on the results of the expert interviews and the answers, the...thirdSome
concrete recommendations for action can be derived. These should be generically
applicable as a blueprint for any adjustments to HR and personnel processes. All
considerations and recommendations for action should always take into account
the benefits for the organization and possible obstacles to implementation.
In thefourthand the last part of the work is to design the role of a future HR
organization as part of an agile organization. The question should also be
answered as to how agile the HR organization itself can or even has to become in
order to be perceived as a partner on an equal level. The focus here should be
consistently directed towards the future and describe possible areas of action in
which HR can actively support agile parts of the organization.
Target group and benefits
Who is the work written for?This work is intended primarily to serve employees in
the area of human resources, but also line management, as a guide and
orientation for agile transformation, but also when dealing with agile teams. It
should not only generate awareness, but also assess the opportunities and risks
and show and discuss possible role distributions between the actors in the agile
transition process. Particular attention should be paid to the support function from
HR. The choice of focal points should help to identify weak points in your own
system and to specifically address them with the corresponding recommendations
for action.
Who can benefit from the content and generate benefits?Ultimately, an

organization can only have long-term success in the market if it can react to
changes in a timely manner. What “timely” means varies greatly from person to
person and industry-specific. Even if this is not a new insight, there are often long
and arduous paths between recognition and implementation. Organizations that
have the courage to take new steps in the area of human resources can benefit.
to also take unconventional paths and thus actively help shape change.
Ultimately, it is a plea for the cooperation and use of the collective intelligence of
knowledge workers, who are part of a modern world
Agility in the context of corporate development 18
organization must also include HR managers. For this reason, the developed,
concretized solution proposals can be seen not only as food for thought, but also
as blueprints for sensible adjustments to the personnel instruments. Illustrating
costs in the form of simple calculations in combination with the expected benefits
for individual HR processes and adaptations can help implementers justify the
need for adaptation in the HR and management tools to the organization.
2. Agility in the context of corporate development

For a better basic understanding of the connections and the delimitation of the
numerous terms mentioned in the context of agility, these are introduced below in
the temporal context of their origin. The first section of the work therefore has the
following goals:
v Introduction to the terms Lean, Agile and Scrum.
v Description of the philosophy of Scrum and the agile manifesto.
vIdentification of the weaknesses of classic personnel instruments

the needs of agile teams and departments.
vDerivation of questions to evaluate the need for support

HR department and personnel processes.
Introduction to the terms Lean, Scrum Framework and Agile

Manifesto
The term agility has gained enormous popularity in recent years and can certainly
be described as a so-called “buzzword” that “...gives every object that is referred to
with it the appearance of modernity and dynamism”. (Anderson & Uhlig, 2015, p.
261). An internet search with Google for the English adjective “agile” unsurprisingly
also yields over 76 million search results (as of November 2015), while a
simultaneous search for the German translation “agile” still yields 6.7 million search
hits.
Where does the enormous popularity of the term agility come from?
An indication of this can be derived from the Google search suggestions, which are
also often combined with agility in the literature, such as production,
management, development, leadership or lean. In addition, agility in the context of
change management is listed as a meta-competence, which “...as one of the
individual competencies of the company
“superordinate” (Mollbach & Bergstein, 2015, p. 7) competence must be developed

in order to be sustainably successful in a dynamic environment. If you translate the
term from Latin, where “agilis” meansnimble, agile, skillful, quickorfastIt becomes
clear why agility is so often associated with flexibility and adaptability. Both are
attributes that individuals and organizations like to claim for themselves. Especially
when you consider the antonyms of agile such as clumsy, inactive or inflexible.
On this occasion, it is important for the overall understanding to briefly introduce

and examine the historical background of agility in more detail, as well as to
differentiate it from the term lean, even if they are often used colloquially together
or synonymously.
Lean comes from the production industry, Agile from software development
Basically, between the termsLeanandAgilebe differentiated. While the roots of the

termLeanThe term dates back to the beginning of the 20th century and is clearly
associated with the production industryAgilearound the turn of the millennium in
the area of software development. The term Scrum, often mentioned in
connection with agile methodology, is probably the most popular (project)
management framework for agile SW development. Since this is currently the best-
known methodology alongside Kanban, it will always be used as an example below
and described in detail.
Leanin its current form has its roots in the Japanese automobile industry and there
in the world-famous Toyota Production System (TPS). This can be traced back to the
founder of Toyota Toyoda Sakichi, who in 1902 laid the basis for “intelligent
automation” with the invention of an automatically stopping loom, the so-called
Jidōka principle, which, together with the “Just in Time” developed by his son
“Philosophy, which formed the basis of the TPS three decades later. On this basis,
the TPS and thus the basic philosophies for lean production and lean management
were conceptualized and further developed by the engineer and production
manager Taiichi Ohno and Shiego Shingo, among others. The basic idea of the
philosophy, first published by Toyota in 1992, is the avoidance of all types of waste
(Ohno, 1993). “The TPS is a framework for conserving resources by eliminating
waste. People who participate in the system learn to identify expenditures of
material, effort and time that do not generate value for customers” (Toyota Motor
Corporation, 1998). Interesting in connection with the drivers for agile discussed
later
Transformation, is a look at the factors that significantly influenced the creation of

the TPS. The main reasons for this were the shortage of raw materials in Japan
after the Second World War and the economic isolation caused by the United
States of America, which wanted to use this form of protectionism to protect its
own automobile industry from Japanese competition. In contrast to the US
automobile industry, the Japanese automobile industry had the great advantage
that it did not have any pronounced Tayloristic roots (Scientific Management). had
a past. In Japan, “...parallel and largely independent of Taylorism...” (Syska, 2006, p.
151) a new system was able to develop that was adapted to Japanese needs.
The most important elements of Lean can be summarized as follows:
v Avoidance of any kind of waste and the associated reduction of costs and
increase in profitability.
vIdentification of opportunities to continuously improve product quality

improve.
v use anyone Feedbacks while of Product life cycle

(development, production and sales).
v Creating a culture of continuous learning.
The termAgileAs already mentioned, is much younger and can clearly be assigned
to software development. The first so-called agile methods were described around
25 years ago and have since become increasingly established in industries with fast
software release cycles.
They developed more or less as a response to the sequential development

processes that had prevailed up until then, such as the waterfall model (see Figure
2), which, however, were only partially applicable and practical due to their low
flexibility for the development of SW. In this context, the self-critical statement by
Winston Royce, director at the Lockheed Software Technology Center, about the
waterfall model he described from 1970 is noteworthy: “I believe in this concept,
but the implementation described above is risky and invites failure” (Royce , 1970).
The primary disadvantage is that in the event of errors, a large part of the previous
steps have to be repeated and this becomes more and more costly as development
progresses. In addition, the process, which is also compared to a relay race, often
leads to
Identify related tasks, but don't look into the future enough. The transfer or The
transition to the next phase is therefore often associated with a loss of important
information and errors are passed on undetected. Ultimately, the model is also
based on the still widespread and incorrect assumption that everything in a project
can be planned.
Requirements
Draft
implementation
examination
maintenance
Figure 2: Waterfall model of sequential development.
In complete contrast to these forward-planning methods, iterative, agile methods

emerged that are also used within theManagement Framework Scrumcome into
use. These pursue, among other things, the goal of increasing productivity by
opening up new ways of collaboration and increasing flexibility in relation to
changing market and/or Customer requirements. They are also intended to help
identify errors as early as possible in order to continuously improve the quality of
SW products.
Scrumming as an alternative project management methodology
Scrumcombines parts of knowledge management and TPS and has now evolved
into a further developed formtheDe-facto standard established in agile SW
development. Historically, however, it has its roots in hardware development and
project management.
The nameScrumwas probably first coined by the Japanese Takeuchi and Nonaka in
their article “The New New Product Development Game” (Takeuchi & Nonaka,
1986). Using concrete examples (Honda cars, Xerox copiers, Canon SLR cameras),
the specialist article describes alternative forms of product development in which,
in contrast to the sequential waterfall model, the individual project phases at least
overlap or, in extreme cases, completely overlap (see Figure 3). All examples were
characterized by short running times and, interestingly, a long one
Degree of innovation. A reduction in the project duration could be achieved if

those involved cooperated optimally with each other and were able to promptly
solve problems that arose specifically during the transitions between phases. Due
to the tw. When the project phases overlap, the generally critical “hand over” is
deliberately enforced. The extreme variant by the authorsScrum was baptized, but
parallels all phases. Here, with the aim of maximizing cooperation, close
cooperation and permanent coordination is required from all those involved. In
addition to potentially significantly shortened project durations, the method also
aims to promote innovation and at the same time counteract so-called group think.
This refers to the tendency to adopt the opinions of dominant employees in a
group without reflection.
Overlapping*development phases
Scrum
Figure 3: Classic sequential development versus Scrum according to (Stefan & Wolf, 2015, p. 2).
The authors compared the project team's approach with that of a rugby team after
a controlled restart of the game. The so-called “scrumming” is characterized by
“...the interaction of a team with the aim of moving the ball across the field...
[where]...a common intention and a clear goal are required...” ( Sutherland & Haas,
2014, p. 15) and are crucial for team success. According to Takeuchi and Nonaka, a
Scrum team is also characterized by its interdisciplinary composition, a high degree
of autonomy, self-organization and the ability to cooperate. Or in other words:
“Scrum teams are autonomous, business-focused teams that take ownership and
responsibility for their process” (Stefan & Wolf, 2015, p. 3).
At this point it becomes clear for the first time that this alternative form of work at the
product development level, completely independent of whether hardware or software
development, can only be achieved with conscious changes and adjustments in the
organization can function successfully. Many of these adaptations can be assigned

to an area of human capital management. This becomes even clearer when Jeff
Sutherland and Ken Schwaber develop it furtherScrum Frameworkfor SW
development in detail, paying attention to HR-relevant aspects.
Jeff Sutherland implemented firstScrumProcesses based on the methods of

Nonaka and Takeuchi for the first time in a software project in 1993, making him
probably the first “Scrum Master” in history. In addition to Sutherland, Ken
Schwaber was also experimenting with similar methods at this time, which led to
the two collaborating on what is todayScrumcreated for the SW developments. In
the years that followed, more and more so-called “lightweight” approaches and
methods emerged that developed and became increasingly established within the
Scrum Network.
The Agile Manifesto defines shared values and principles

The highlight can be described as the publication of the Agile Manifesto in 2001,
which summarizes the shared values and principles (Seventeen first signatory,
2001). The manifesto can be understood as a consolidated response to the
conservative, bureaucratic and complicated processes in which the process and the
method, but not the people, were at the center.
The manifesto contains 4 values (Figure 4) and 12 complementary principles (see

Section 9.1) and can be used astheThe foundation of agile software development
can be called. From the four values, 12 additional principles are derived, “...which
represent principles of action for the methods of agile software
development” (Schütz, 2014).
individuals and • more than processes

Interactions and tools
Functioning • more than comprehensive

software documentation
Cooperation
• more than contract negotiation
with the customer
React to • more than following a

Changes plan
Figure 4: Agile Manifesto (Seventeen initial signatories, 2001).

What all the processes derived from this have in common is that they are
characterized by a very limited design phase, iterative procedures and a maximum
of flexibility in execution.
The aim was to make software development “leaner”, more flexible and ultimately
more customer-oriented and to put people back at the center. For example, the
principles state that changes to requirements are welcome, even if they come late,
which must be interpreted as a clear commitment to flexibility. In addition, the
focus is on customer satisfaction, which can be interpreted as a countermove to
the alienation of many developers from customers.
The resulting oneScrumis not a method, even if it is often described that way, but
as Ken Schwaber explains, “a framework for risk management and value
optimization through frequent replanning” (Schwaber, 2013, p. 11). Compared to
sequential methods, the advantage is that dysfunctions become visible very quickly
and can be systematically remedied. The idea behind it, as with Lean, is the
permanent analysis and optimization of the system, combined with a continuous
learning process. Here setsScrum, in addition to a certain human maturity and
common sense, also requires a high willingness to continuously learn and share
knowledge from employees. However, Schwaber also cautions that companies that
“...use Scrum without changing, analyzing themselves intelligently and
adapting” (Schwaber, 2013, p. 11) are usually worse off after the introduction than
before.Scrumis also a change management approach, whereby there are clear
ideas about how people and employees should be dealt with. TheScrum The
underlying image of humanity is very reminiscent of Theory Y (McGregor, 1960),
developed by Douglas McGregor in 1960. McGregor already described back then
that the key to a company's efficiency and success lies in flat hierarchies and the
self-determination of employees. Based on this, Theory Y describes a person who
has no innate aversion to work, wants to take on responsibility when conditions
are right, and develops self-control and initiative when committed to
organizational goals. The opposing theory Personal initiative and voluntary
assumption of responsibility have no importance in Theory X.
Even ifScrumOn the meta level, it has to be classified as a basic belief, but on the
process level it is contrasted by a clearly defined way of working. This is
characterized by a simple process model with precisely defined roles. In addition to
the actual team, there is at least the Scrum Master (SM), who is responsible for
compliance with and continuous optimization of the process, and the Product
Owner (PO), who is responsible for maintaining and prioritizing the backlog
(collection of activities to be processed). the product vision is responsible.
For further understanding, it is important that these are not classic functions, but
only roles that an employee occupies for a certain period of time. In addition to
these three original roles, Boris Gloger defines the additional roles of the line
manager, the (internal) customer and the user (Gloger, 2013, p. 9ff). This
representation is particularly helpful because it also addresses the special
relationship between the line manager and the individual team members and the
Scrum Master.
The clearly defined working method is outlined in Figure 5 using an HR-related

example. In principle, it is a step-by-step processing of a work package prioritized
by the product owner and the team. It is the team that determines - but at the
same time also takes responsibility for itself - how many tasks will be processed in
the so-called sprint (2-4 weeks) (so-called pull principle). The goal of each sprint
stage is to complete a potentially shippable product, with each sprint prioritizing
which additional features from the backlog will be implemented. All of this is done
in close consultation with the customer representative (product owner).
Figure 5: Overview of Scrum modified according to Mountain Goat Software.

In addition to the planning meetings that are firmly anchored in the process before the
actual sprint, a regular project comparison with the following key questions takes place in
the daily Scrum meeting:
v What have I achieved?
v What do I plan to do by tomorrow?
v What is hindering me?
v How can I help my colleagues?
At the end of each sprint, a retrospective is always carried out with the aim of
addressing problems and errors and continuously improving the process. Here,
too, it becomes clear that very high demands are placed on the employees, the
culture and the organization, as both the daily and retrospective meetings rely on
open and direct feedback.
The fact that the switch to agile methods is not a temporary trend is proven,
among other things, by the VersionOne study, which describes that in 2013, 84% of
all companies surveyed in the study were already using agile processes in SW
development (VersionOne.com, 2013, p. 2). It can also be observed that agile
methods are increasingly becoming established outside of the area of software
development.
The trend towards agile methods can be observed not only in the obvious area of
hardware development, but also, for example, in the area of marketing and
project management (where, strictly speaking, it also began).
In summary this means:
vThe lean methodology was conceptualized much earlier than agile methods
became;
v has a much wider scope of application;
v and is independent of the type of company and products;
v Agile methods are primarily used in the area of software development;
v and based on techniques that come from the Lean methodology;
v Scrumhas its roots in hardware and not software development;
vScrumfor development only represents a best practice framework where

mostly agile methods are used;
vthe establishment of agile methods such asScruman organization sustainably

can change;
vtheRole of HRin supporting these structuresTo be defined

must.
Requirements of agile teams on the organization
From the previously outlined working methods of agile teams, the philosophy of
Scrum and your own experiences, numerous demands can be derived from the
personnel instruments and the framework conditions of the organization. The
demands are sensibly structured using the three fields of action of the Human Ca
pital managements shown in Figure 6.
performance evaluation Employee interviews

Feedback Objective
performance
management
Human Capital
management
Competence
HC Marketing
management
Career Paths
recruitment
Role understanding
Figure 6: St strategic areas of action in human capital management e completes with to

investigating areas (Meyer-Ferreira, 2015, p. 32).
As in the F position described, the center of gravity should be primary är on the

Field of action Performance Management lies and there the preparation, e areas
Employee benefits objectives, performance assessment and the areas of HC Feedback
cover. In marketing and competence management score points for ment
only the sisters recruitment and/or. Career paths and roles understanding
considered.
Potential S Fields of tension can arise particularly with instruments n, where the
originally f developed for classic organizations weaknesses
show and contradict the requirements of agile teams. Examples include assigning
long-term, individual goals and introducing roles alongside or instead of
hierarchical positions. Both points will be addressed in detail below as part of the
definition of the interview questions.
There is no question that this could also be a case of general weaknesses in

personnel instruments, which to a certain extent also affect classic organizational
structures. These parts of the organization would certainly not suffer any
disadvantages from any adaptations, but the agile teams would benefit
significantly more. This point is important for deriving recommendations for
action, as many organizations currently and will continue to have hybrid structures.
This refers to structures in which agile and classic structures coexist.
Derivation of interview questions for HR managers

The resulting interview questions are based on the areas of tension described and
are discussed in the main part of the work in the context of the results of the
interviews. Possible recommendations for action are only discussed in the final
part of the work. It should be noted that the area of compensation and benefits,
which is part of performance management, is deliberately not discussed. The
background is the fact that this is a rather sensitive area where little feedback is to
be expected in interviews. However, if, contrary to expectations, individual
companies are prepared to provide information about any specific, team-focused
compensation models for employees in agile business areas, these will be
discussed in the context of performance management.
In addition, in the following analysis, the employee is always viewed as a value

creation potential or even as a stakeholder group and not as a cost factor. The
reason for this is that this group of employees are usually highly qualified, in-
demand and specialized knowledge workers from the field of (SW) engineering.
Even if only companies were selected that have established agile development
environments in at least parts of their organization, it must always be assumed
that the HR managers surveyed are not fully informed about how agile teams
work. To address this, a short introduction was provided in the interview guide (see
Section 8.2) and the following first block of questions was formulated. In addition
to the introduction to the topic, this should also contain company-specific
associations
Find out more about the term, but also allow conclusions to be drawn about the
degree of penetration in the organization.
ID Ask background
A01 What does agility mean? What meaning does the term
have in the company and “what”
does it stand for?
A02 In which areas of the organization are agile Inquiry of

methods used? penetration level
within the organization.
A03 Does HR know the working methods and philosophy Knowledge about, for example
of agile teams? Scrumand that
underlying
Framework and/or
Kanban.
Table 1: Collection of questions about agility in general.
Areas of tension in the area of performance management
The goal of performance management is “...to ensure competitive company

performance compared to the sales market” (Meyer-Ferreira, 2015, p. 148) by
implementing strategic company goals into quantifiable results with the best
possible use (the word use is deliberately avoided here ) of existing human capital.
Classic performance management instruments that most employees in the
company are confronted with include, in addition to the widespread target
agreements, employee appraisals and performance assessments or feedback in a
variety of forms.
Employee interviews and performance appraisals
Employee appraisals have different intentions. They are used for regular
performance evaluation, for annual target agreement and for defining the
employee's personal development goals. It is not uncommon for salary discussions
to be held in this context. Depending on the company, individual elements are
combined together in the employee interview.
Even if these are sensible goals, the content is often not very effective for agile
teams and does not correspond to their everyday lives, as it is within the
framework ofScrumPractice professionally focused feedback on a daily basis. If you
use elite sport as a comparison, constant feedback on your own performance is an
integral part of training and coaching. It is inconceivable that an athlete only
competes once a year
talks to his coach about his performance and goals. However, a look at actual
corporate practice often shows a different picture. But how can top performance
be created and promoted if employees don't know whether what they do is what is
expected of them and then, in the worst case, only receive feedback once a year in
an appraisal interview. Here is a real example from the internal training documents
of a former department head: “During the year I write down positive and negative
impressions/performances of my employees. I then use this recording in the
annual performance review for an annual review and an evaluation as a reminder.”
Even if the idea of recapitulating and summarizing is well-intentioned towards the
employee, it should be permanent,
Continuous, structured feedback is an integral part ofScrum, where continuous

means at least always at the end of a development sprint (2-3 weeks) in the sprint
retrospective. The feedback on performance comes from teammates but also from
the Scrum Master (process-related) and product owner (product vision) and is
therefore very timely. Which is in contrast to employee appraisals that only take
place annually. The intention behind this is to continuously improve the process
and quickly eliminate so-called impediments. The following questions regarding
the need for support from HR can be derived from this:
ID Ask background
PM01 At what interval do formal find en General question,

employee reviews take place? e instead of? Basic information.
PM02 Is the content and process of the General question,

employee discussions specified? Basic information.
PM03 What is the goal of the employee interview? General question,

Basic information.
PM04 Who conducts the performance appraisal in agile Agile teams are heavily
teams? focused on the Scrum
Master, the line manager or
Department heads often have little
contact with them
employees.
PM05 Are the groups of people who conduct Specific training possibly
employee appraisals given special also for line managers of
training? employees from agile
teams.
PM06 If the line manager does not work directly Control of the
with the employee but conducts the appraisal Information flow especially in
interview: agile working environments.
How is it ensured that the necessary
information about the content of the
performance review is available?
PM07 Who assesses the performance of individual Team performance versus
team members in an agile team? individual performance.
Note: Question sets
assume that there are goals.
PM08 Are there specific appraisals for employees of Difference in content.

agile teams (Scrum, Kanban)? No retrospective
Consideration, focus only on
development and future.
PM09 If so, what does the U consist of? difference? Follow-up question to PM08.
PM10 If not, would that make sense? Follow-up question with discussion.
Table 2: Collection of performance management questions – area of employee interviews and

performance assessments.
Goal agreement process for agile teams or departments

From the description of how agile teams work, it can be deduced that the focus of performance management tends to shift from the individual towards team performance. This also applies to
the area of objectives, which, due to the many iterations and thus possible changes in direction, have a different horizon in terms of content and time. However, many companies use
individual goals set once a year as a management tool. The concept is mostly based on the Management by Objectives principle developed by Peter Drucker in 1954. It is now common
practice to break down company goals down to the individual employee. The latter with the intention of giving the employee orientation and showing what contribution this can make to the
company's goals. Agile teams, however, work exclusively as a team; the development goals adapt iteratively and dynamically to customer requirements and cannot be fully planned for
methodological reasons. However, it should be taken into account that even in agile organizations, the goal setting should still address both groups (team and individual). In this context,
drawing clear “...dividing lines between the goals of the individual employee and those of the team” (Gloger & Häusling, 2011, p. 98) is an important requirement for the goal-setting process.
The challenge is that these should not contradict each other, which is also a valid rule for other goals. Agile teams, however, work exclusively as a team; the development goals adapt
iteratively and dynamically to customer requirements and cannot be fully planned for methodological reasons. However, it should be taken into account that even in agile organizations, the
goal setting should still address both groups (team and individual). In this context, drawing clear “...dividing lines between the goals of the individual employee and those of the team” (Gloger
& Häusling, 2011, p. 98) is an important requirement for the goal-setting process. The challenge is that these should not contradict each other, which is also a valid rule for other goals. Agile
teams, however, work exclusively as a team; the development goals adapt iteratively and dynamically to customer requirements and cannot be fully planned for methodological reasons.
However, it should be taken into account that even in agile organizations, the goal setting should still address both groups (team and individual). In this context, drawing clear “...dividing lines
between the goals of the individual employee and those of the team” (Gloger & Häusling, 2011, p. 98) is an important requirement for the goal-setting process. The challenge is that these
should not contradict each other, which is also a valid rule for other goals. The development goals adapt iteratively and dynamically to customer requirements and cannot be fully planned for
methodological reasons. However, it should be taken into account that even in agile organizations, the goal setting should still address both groups (team and individual). In this context,
drawing clear “...dividing lines between the goals of the individual employee and those of the team” (Gloger & Häusling, 2011, p. 98) is an important requirement for the goal-setting process.
The challenge is that these should not contradict each other, which is also a valid rule for other goals. The development goals adapt iteratively and dynamically to customer requirements and
cannot be fully planned for methodological reasons. However, it should be taken into account that even in agile organizations, the goal setting should still address both groups (team and
individual). In this context, drawing clear “...dividing lines between the goals of the individual employee and those of the team” (Gloger & Häusling, 2011, p. 98) is an important requirement for
the goal-setting process. The challenge is that these should not contradict each other, which is also a valid rule for other goals. In this context, drawing clear “...dividing lines between the
goals of the individual employee and those of the team” (Gloger & Häusling, 2011, p. 98) is an important requirement for the goal-setting process. The challenge is that these should not contradict each other, which is
A further challenge in addition to goal dualism is who assigns the goals and, if
there is a division into team and individual goals, how this should be regulated and
how these goals differ in terms of content. This does not necessarily have to
involve complicating the process, but there must be coordination between those
who assign goals and there must be clarity about what the team's performance
goals and economic goals are. Economic goals can include product or project costs
but also a defined return on investment (ROI).
When agreeing on goals, it should also be taken into account that monetary,
extrinsic incentives are often less effective for highly qualified employees. Frederick
Herzberg describes salary as a hygiene factor that can prevent dissatisfaction, but
is not able to produce satisfaction (Herzberg, 1966). Instead, long-term motivation
and satisfaction arise from an existing, high level of intrinsic motivation, which can
be maintained and increased through appropriate framework conditions such as
professional training, technological opportunities in product development,
continuous challenges and the transfer of responsibility. The latter are things that
fall directly into the area of leadership.
The following questions can be derived from this, which can provide information about
whether the needs of agile teams are being adequately taken into account here.
ID Ask background
PM11 Are you working with individual targets Note: These do not necessarily
down to the employee level? have to be included
monetary incentives
be coupled.
PM12 For what period are goals agreed? Goals in agile teams change
very quickly, so it makes sense
to adapt them on a rolling
basis, otherwise they quickly
become obsolete.
PM13 Do the goals of agile teams etching process Adapted, specific

differ from those of “classic nhaltingly processes versus one
organizations”? hen" universal process.
PM14 Are there any individual performance goals Individual goals with a long
for employees in agile teams (e.g.Scrum/ time horizon are rather
Kanban)? problematic for employees
in Scrum teams because
they work as a team and
development goals change
dynamically
change.
PM15 If there are individual performance goals for Coordination of the Scrum
employees in agile teams, who defines them Master's goals with those of
and what is their focus? the Line Manager. For
example, Line’s career goals
Manager, professional
Development goals from the Scrum
Master.
PM16 Are team goals also used as a Team goals as an alternative

control tool? or supplement to
individual goals.
PM17 If so, are team goals also defined bottom-up Follow-up question about PM16
by the team together with the Scrum Master with discussion about: benefits,
or Line Manager? process, assessment,
Acceptance at
Management.
PM18 How does the assessment of team goals take Follow-up question to PM16.
place, or how would this sensibly take place? Team goals can be very
motivating if you identify
strongly with them. But it
needs to be coordinated with
the company's goals.
Table 3: Collection of performance management questions – area of target agreement.
Feedback
Feedback is feedback to a person or a group of people. This should be constructive

criticism of behavior, which clearly distinguishes feedback from pure criticism.
Direct and timely feedback is an integral part of agile methods such asScrum. The
feedback can come from different sides and stakeholders. In order for an open and
constructive feedback culture to exist in agile teams, various basic requirements
must be met. This includes adequate selection, training and further education of
the Scrum Master in the areas of feedback, team building and conflict
management. These individual skills must be recognized and trained through
appropriate continuing education offerings and trained regularly.
Another special feature of agile teams is the frequent use of 180 and 360° feedback
methods. However, the latter should not be carried out without the involvement of
neutral people (e.g. from the HR department), otherwise the effect may be lost.
Ask background
PM19 Are 180 or 360° feedback methods This can be the method of
also used in agile teams? choice, especially for agile
teams. However, it must be
well introduced and
moderated by HR or an
experienced Scrum Master.
PM20 If 180 or 360° feedback methods are Follow-up question to PM19.

used, who moderates these
conversations?
PM21 Become a Scrum Master in terms of technical The literature suggests that
feedback, team building and the technical leadership of the
Conflict management specifically trained? Is this Scrum Team should be carried
part of the leadership training? out by the Scrum Master.
However, this requires

specific training, for
example:
Feedback is specific and
praise is not applied in an
inflationary manner.
Table 4: Collection of Performance Management questions – Feedback area.
Competence management
According to the Center for Human Capital Management's understanding,

competency management deals with "...planning and controlling company
competencies and their components with the aim of gaining competitive
advantages..." (Meyer-Ferreira, 2015, p. 115). four markets (financial market,
procurement and technology market, labor and sales market). What is crucial is
that in today's knowledge society it is no longer the ownership of land and
machines that determines market advantage, but rather the knowledge of the
individual and the potentiation of this through targeted and controlled
cooperation. Companies themselves do not have any skills; these always belong to
the knowledge holders, i.e. the employees, who then use them - depending on the
investment conditions - and thus contribute to value creation.
In the area of competency management, it is particularly the areas of career

development and role/position understanding that can potentially lead to conflicts
with classic HR processes in an agile environment. Both are determined by the
organization and the fixed, defined roles, for example in Scrum Teams as shown in
Figure 7. In particular, constellations such as those illustrated in part b) place high
demands on the
Arrangement and coordination of the managers involved with regard to

responsibility for personnel development.
Scrum & Team Scrum & Team
Line(Manager(A Line(Manager(C
Scrum(Team( Scrum(Team(
Product(Owner Scrum (Master Product(Owner Scrum (Master
Line(Manager(B
a) b)
Figure 7: Scrum Team Roles; a) simple representation; b) Constellation with different line
managers.
The conscious equality of all employees in the development team (team role) raises
questions in the area of personnel development for team members. These include
both job-related (vertical) and career-related (horizontal) personnel development.
Career models that include an expert role in addition to the management career
are advantageous in an agile environment, but are not established everywhere. In
addition, the role and the associated function of the Scrum Master in the area of
technical leadership can lead to a conflict of interest in career planning with the
responsible line manager. Losing titles and positions can cause additional
problems in Scrum Teams. In their place come roles that vary depending on the
situation, The level of training and internal needs of the company can change.
Companies with a corporate culture in which titles and hierarchies are highly
valued will potentially find it more difficult to establish agile methods. The aim of
the questions developed is to gain insights into addressing these two focal points
and dealing with the problem.
Ask background
CM01 What career paths are there for employees in Development opportunities in agile
agile teams? teams can be achieved through the
role function, through which, by
definition, “everyone”
Team members are the same
can be problematic.
CM02 Who is responsible for vertical and This can lead to a conflict of
horizontal personnel development in agile objectives between Line
teams? Managers and, for example,
Scrum Masters come.
CM03 Scrum changes the . From positions The transition from a

leadership roles. hierarchical position to a
Line managers have to get t", role is often difficult
“machine” but in return for g more scope Problems/fears/questions
other tasks. associated.
How is this already an issue n and is this
dealt with?
Table 5: Competence Management question collection – career paths area.
HC Marketing
HC Marketing as a classic cross-sectional function has the task of maintaining and

shaping the organization's relationship with the external and internal labor market.
The focus here is not only on the representation and positioning of the
organization on the labor market, but also on maintaining the “employer brand”.
The main goal of HC marketing is “...to have the competitively crucial human
capital ready for use at the right time in the right place at the right price” (Meyer-
Ferreira, 2015, p. 81). Even if the fields of activity of HC marketing extend far
beyond the area of recruitment, only this area should be examined in the
interviews. The focus here is particularly on the way in which members of agile
teams are involved in the recruiting process.
Ask background
HCM01 How are Scrum team members included consideration of

in the recruitment of new team Organization of agile
members? teams. Co-decision?
HCM02 Are the roles and associated tasks of Scrum Role Scrum Master, Product
Teams known to HR? Owner.
HCM03 Are there dedicated competency profiles for Has HR, together with those
Scrum roles such as Scrum Master, Product responsible for the line,
Owner? thought about these roles
and the associated
requirements?
Presentation of the qualitative survey results 37
HCM04 When recruiting, certain aspects regarding the consideration of

potentially desired behavior in an agile team needed social
are taken into account Competencies such as the
taken into account? willingness to share knowledge
and curiosity. Ideally based on
the existing ones
Competency profiles.
Table 6: Collection of questions for HC marketing – recruitment area.
Segmentation of companies for interviews

The methodological focus was on a qualitative inventory of the situation in selected
companies with headquarters in Switzerland. In order to cover the broadest
possible range of industrial sectors, companies from the areas of mechanical
engineering, instrument making, ICT and medical technology were surveyed.
All companies are characterized by the fact that they have development
departments in which agile methods such asScrumor Kanban can be practiced. For
the selection, it doesn't matter whether they are located in software or hardware
development or other company areas. Since the companies were guaranteed
anonymity during the interviews, no company names are mentioned in the work
and the key figures and areas of activity are only roughly described.
3. Presentation of the qualitative survey results

When collecting the data, the focus was on a qualitative statement. For this reason,
instead of a large-scale online survey, four interviews were conducted with HR
managers and a total of seven HR managers. Below is a summary of the
companies' answers and statements in an anonymous, uncommented form. The
structured discussion takes place afterwards.
The objectives of the chapter can be formulated as follows:
v Presentation of the interview answers.
v Summary and discussion of the thematic blocks.
vIdentification of topics for explicit recommendations for action

will then be described in the last part of the work.
Understanding of agility
Understanding of agility s
A01 What does edoes agility?
Company A
Agility is one of the company values; Flexible and adaptive; Ability to reflect the
complexity of the market; Be open and prepared (for the unexpected); Being able to let
go (of the old).
Learning Agility: Using/transforming/translating knowledge from the past and applying it
to solving new problems. An agile mindset characterizes those employees who advance
the company. Internally, it is important to identify these employees.
Agile Manufacturing: Work psychology used to talk about so-called partial

autonomy.
Concepts never work alone, but only if management supports them. Management
must recognize the latter. See also “Condition-related work psychology”.
Company B
Away from rigid structures/silos towards the realization of a project order with the
people needed to work on the specific topic/issue.
Company C
Modern; Energy; Future-oriented; Flexibility; Adaptable; Drive.
Company D
Flexible; Adaptable organization; Future-oriented; Absolute attention; Not a
standard process, but adaptive processes to achieve the goal.
A02 In which areas the Are agile methods used in the organization?
Company A
Software development, Kanban in production.
Philosophy relies heavily on decentralization; Make decisions where the knowledge and
experience are. For this reason, the company also has local, decentralized decision-
making structures.
Note: The introduction of an ERP system, however, has the following effect: (system-
related) the opposite through centralization of processes. So this is partly. in contrast to
decentralization. But processes can also free up human capital for more important tasks.
Company B
software development; HR itself has no experience working with agile methods.
Company is in the starting blocks. However, there are “tribes & squads” that work
agilely, for exampleScrum.
Company C
software development; Kanban in production; Pilot team in HW development
(addition by the author).
Company D
software development; leadership; Production (Kanban); Hardware development (phase in).
A03 Does HR know the working methods and philosophy of agile teams?
Company A
No,Scrumwas little known. Author's note: Interestingly, design thinking is well
known.
Company B
Only high level as part of recruiting. HR is still in its early stages here, meaning the
organization has changed faster than HR was able to adapt.
Company C
No, not yet, but there are plans to look into it. Company D
Not yet known to everyone on a global level; However, HR business partners who
support agile teams already know the working methods and philosophy of agile
teams well. Note: Recruitments are processed as agile projects within HR.
Table 7: Answers for understanding agility.
Performance management
The focus of the questions asked was in the area of performance management with
four selected topic areas. In addition to the topic of employee reviews, performance
assessments and goal setting, the area of feedback, which is important for agile
teams, was also addressed and discussed with those responsible for HR.
Employee interviews and performance reviews
Performance Man agement

PM01 In which temporal Int eAre there formal employee appraisals?
Company A
12 months, plus a recommended mid-year interview.
Company B
12 months.
Company C
12 months, plus a recommended mid-year interview.
Company D
12 months, plus three recommended intermediate interviews.
PM02 Is the content and process of the employee appraisals?

Company A
Yes, content is fixed via a specifications
document. Company B
Partially. There is also a guide for supervisors. Company C
Yes, content fixed via a default document.

Company D
Yes, content is fixed via a specification document and associated guidelines.
PM03 What is the goal of the employee interview?
Company A
Employee Engagement: Why do I (the employee) do what I do? Company B
career development; talent identification; Employee appraisal primarily to assess performance

and development; Talent development: Supervisors should promote the development of the
employee.
Company C
performance appraisal retrospective; career development; Obtain feedback from the
employee.
Company D
performance appraisal retrospective; Objective agreement; career
development; Location check values (against the competency model).
PM04 Who conducts the performance appraisal in agile teams?
Company A
Line manager. This conversation is important for both the employees and the line
manager. Changes here would potentially meet with great resistance.
Company B
Line manager.
Company C
Line Manager: No distinction between employee groups. The responsibility for this
clearly lies with the line manager. If necessary, involve the project manager in the
discussion; Line managers should not act as a mouthpiece if the employee has worked
in another team all year.
Company D
Line Manager (responsible for implementation) together with theScrumMaster or
project manager.
PM05 Will the person size upp, who conduct employee appraisals
specially trained?
Company A
Yes, this is part of the internal
training. Company B
Yes, there are special training courses for new managers in the internal academy.
Company C
Yes, with special training also for young line managers who have little experience.
Company D
Yes, special training.
PM06 If the line manager n does not conduct the appraisal

cooperates, but interview directly with the employee:
How is it ensured that employee das the necessary information about the contents of the document
appraisals are carried out? is available?
Company A
The Success Factors tool used allows feedback to be obtained electronically from
peers or 3rd parties (e.g. external partners). Otherwise, this takes place by comparing
the line manager with the project manager.
Company B
Process poorly controlled. It is important that relevant feedback is obtained. This
becomes problematic with a large management span, such as a line manager who is
responsible for 20 employees. Constantly obtaining feedback (including from third
parties) is far too complicated and time-consuming.
Company C
Active involvement of the project manager in the
conversation. Company D
The requirement is that the Scrum Master or project manager conduct the discussion together,
whereby the project manager is usually also the line manager.
PM07 Who judges the performance of g of the individual team member of an agile
the teams?
Company A
Line manager.
Company B
Line manager.
Company C
Line manager (normally) together with the project manager.
Company D
Line Manager and Scrum Master/Project Manager.
PM08 Are there specific appraisals for employees of agile teams (Scrum,
Kanban)?
Company A
No.
Company B
No. Comment: The current, rigid process is viewed as not making much sense
(annoying). Company C
No.
Company D
No.
PM09 If so, what does it consist of? dhe difference?
Company A
No difference.
Company B
No difference.
Company C
No difference.
Company D
No difference.
PM10 If not, would that make sense?
Company A
The company would have no understanding for this. Processes should be easy to use.
Company B
The performance management process is currently being adjusted. The aim is, among other
things, modularization. The basis is a module that only evaluates contribution control. The
rest should be mapped in individual modules. A module could also be created for Scrum
Teams.
Company C
So far, no thought has been given in this direction.
Company D
Yes, but only with an appropriate tool, otherwise the effort will be too great.
Table 8: Answers to the area of performance reviews and performance reviews.
Objective
Performance Man agement

PM11 Are you working with individual targets down to the employee level?
Company A
Yes, up to the individual employee.
Company B
Yes, that is currently the case. The employee should now become the owner of their goals.
The trend here is strongly towards pull and away from push. Today, team goals are often
worked top-down. For example, call center boss who passes on a goal to the entire team.
Company C
No, as of this year there are only common divisional goals for employees with a variable
salary component. These goals are defined together by the management team and
coordinated with the management.
Company D
Team goals are generally possible, such as a common project goal.
PM12 For what period are goals agreed?
Company A
12 months; Midyear review recommended; Goals can be adjusted in the system at any time! But
the emphasis is on could. The goals are often forgotten shortly after they have been submitted to
the system.
Company B
12 months.
Company C
Currently 12 months, adjustments are
planned. Company D
12 months.
PM13 Does the goal-setting process in agile teams differ in content from that
of the “classic” organization?
Company A
No, one process for all employees.
Company B
Company C
Company D
PM14 Are there any individually dual performance goals for employees in agile.
working teams (e.g w Scrum/Kanban)?
Company A
There are generally individual performance goals. There is no distinction between agile
and non-agile employees. Note: Goals can also be development goals. There should be
coordination between the project manager and the line manager.
Company B
There are generally individual performance
goals. Company C
No, as of this year there are no longer any individual goals down to the employee level.
Company D
Partially yes. No information on the type of targets.
PM15 If there are individual Goals for employees in agile working environments
Lei teams, define who t these and what is their focus?
Company A
The supporting tool is very flexible. But employees want to have a guideline. Goals are
always assigned by the line manager. The fact that goals should/can be assigned bottom-
up is trained in the internal training and fits in with the decentralized structure. The
system allows a lot, but the line managers have to do it that way.
Company B
Not applicable.
Company C
Not applicable, see answer to question
PM14. Company D
Goals are defined by the Scrum Master together with the Line Manager, with the
specifications coming from the Scrum Master.
PM16 Are team goals also used as a control tool?
Company A
Yes, this is even supported by the tool. Goals can be “passed on.” For example, a team
leader can pass on his goal 1:1 to his team.
Company B
No, so far only top-down.
Company C
Sometimes in individual divisions, where the division goals are agreed upon in the
management team. However, lower management cannot influence this.
Company D
Partly, especially in the area of product development.
PM17 If so, Teamzi will be assigned ele also defined bottom-up by the team together with, for
to the Scrum Master or example, line manager?
Company A
In principle this is possible. But line management has to do it too. Company
B
No, not currently.
Company C
Involve employees and “have them on board”; hand over responsibility;
Appreciation from management.
Company D
Partly, as part of project goals, where the team determines the path, but the end date is
fixed.
PM18 How does the assessmentg the team goals take place, or how would these
sensibly take place? en?
Company A
Line manager.
Company B
If so, this assessment would have to be made by the team.
Company C
Line managers, stakeholders, team. Divisional goals are assessed by the management team and
senior management.
Company D
Line Manager together with Scrum Master.
Table 9: Answers to the area of goal setting.
Feedback
PM19 Are 180 or 180 also 360° feedback methods in agile teams
used?
Company A
Partial: This function is available in the tool, but is not activated. But is used as
preparation for internal training.
Company B
Yes, 360° feedback methods are firmly
established. Company C
Partially on request. Offered to new line managers taking over a team. Company D
So far only 180° feedback.

PM20 If 180 or 360° fairy these dback methods are used by who moderates
conversations?
Company A
Employees of the HR
department. Company B
Employees of the HR
department. Company C
Employees of the HR
department. Company D
Employees of the HR department, Scrum Master.
PM21 Are Scrum Masters hi nvisually trained with professional feedback, team
conflict management gee.g
building and Ielts? Is this part of the leadership training?
Company A
The role is not specifically defined. But these topics are part of the training of project
managers and managers and would theoretically be covered.
Company B
Partially, not permanently included in the internal training program. Must then be realized via external
courses. The Leadership Academy also differentiates between courses for line and specialist
leadership.
Company C
So far there have only been Scrum trainings that mainly taught the method and
philosophy in 2 days. Feedback, team building and conflict management is tw. covered by
the leadership training and project manager training offered.
Company D
Scrum Masters are specially trained (e.g. 180° feedback); very direct type of feedback,
good feedback culture.
Table 10: Responses to the feedback area.
In the area of competency management, the company survey focused on possible

career paths for members of agile teams, the responsibility for vertical and
horizontal personnel development and the understanding of roles. Since the HR
managers at some of the companies surveyed knew very little about the working
methods and the associated needs of agile teams, the discussion about possible
adaptations to the HR processes could only be conducted theoretically.
A company successfully practices the approach of an internal academy, in which

experts pass on their knowledge to other employees. The advantage of this
method, in addition to the involvement of internal experts and the dissemination
of knowledge, is also the appreciation of their knowledge and the willingness to
share it.
As expected, companies have major problems with differentiating between

positions and roles. This is especially true when positions are associated with a
certain status, which often correlates with the number of directly subordinate
employees. Agile teams, on the other hand, are characterized by very flat to no
hierarchies and by roles instead of positions.
Career Paths
CM01 What career paths are there? bIs it for employees in agile teams?
Company A
No defined career paths yet. In general, the company has a very flat and decentralized
structure. There are no internal titles at the company either.
Company B
specialist career; There are currently no special career paths for agile team employees. It is
important that the line and specialist careers are equivalent. Dissolving the silo structures
creates new jobs and development opportunities. Scrum Master, Product Owner, Technical
Leads. Who can what? That requires culture! So the problem of everyone being equal in the
team is not viewed as critically, but rather seen as an opportunity.
Company C
So far there are no specific career paths for this group of people, but only in the
previously defined positions such as: junior, developer, senior developer.
Company D
In general, there are specialist careers (junior, regular, expert) and management careers.
Through job rotations, role changes from Scrum team member to Scrum Master are also
possible.
CM02 Who is responsible for als also horizontal personnel development in agile
the vertical teams?
Company A
Line manager, partly also together with a project
manager. Company B
Line manager;Yes, there is clearly a conflict of goals here! The line manager must accept the
new role. That's partly the case. In addition to strategy, topics include the role as a trend
scout or facilitator.
Company C
Line manager.
Company D
Line Manager in consultation with the Scrum Master/Project Manager.
CM03 Scrumchanges the way you feel tion. Positions become roles.
Line managers need M"eight" but get different tasks in return.
“more leeway for others
How is this dealt with? angens and is this already an issue?
Company A
The introduction of an ERP tool was discussed, where line managers should hand over
their direct employees but take on a much larger project team. The loss of the “direct
reports” led to problems in this example. The mindset is that the budget has to be with
the project! Only a line manager has a budget!
Company B
Direct feedback must be learned. Who manages the conflicts here? Scrum Master, Line
Manager or even HR?
Company C
Not an issue in the HR department so far. A discussed consequence could be that there
will be fewer line managers in the future and their tasks will differ from those of today.
Company D
In many cases, the line manager is also the project manager, so this role change does
not take place. He also works actively in the projects.
Table 11: Answers to the area of career paths and role understanding.
HC marketing area
In the area of HC marketing, only questions were asked about attracting new
employees for agile teams, i.e. recruiting. The focus here was on the degree of
involvement of the respective teams in the recruiting process and their ability to
influence the process. There is also the question of the extent to which competency
profiles for various agile roles already exist.
recruitment
HC Marketing
HCM01 How do Scrum Team team Gsongs in the recruitment of new

members get involved? G en?
Company A
Involving the team is always part of the recruiting process. In some cases, the degree
is even perceived as exaggerated by HR. New employees have to fit in socially.
Company B
Yes active. But there is no clear process. Quote from a Scrum Master: I don't want to work
with incompetent employees. Team has veto power. Trend towards giving more and
more recruiting responsibility back to the line. HR just fills the pipeline with talent.
Company C
Yes, future team members and stakeholders will be involved. HR ensures that these
discussions take place without the future line manager.
Company D
Yes, the team is always involved and has a say in the hiring process. In addition, other
stakeholders from other divisions are also involved.
HCM02 Are the roles and thus v HR errelated tasks of Scrum Teams
known?
Company A
Partly known, but still little detailed knowledge.
Company B
Yes, they are known. Job descriptions are available, but the associated skills
profiles are currently missing.
Company C
No, not currently.
Company D
Yes, but it depends heavily on the area.
HCM03 Are there dedicated competent zprofile for Scrum roles like Scrum Master,
product owners?
Company A
Not yet. Still needs to be created. Company
B
C
D
Not yet. Still needs to be created.
HCM04 Are potentially desirable Have certain aspects of the old one already
relationships when recruiting?
been taken into account in an agile team?
Company A
Yes, regardless of use in agile teams.
Company B
Company C
Yes, in general there is a strong emphasis on behavior and identification with the company
values.
Company D
Table 12: Responses to the area of recruitment.
Evaluation and discussion of the interview results

All companies surveyed, with the exception of one, are international companies
with more than 1,000 employees.
vCompany A: Instrument and plant engineering, listed on the stock exchange, more than
10,000 employees.
vCompany B: ICT services, primarily national, listed, more

than 10,000 employees.
vCompany C: Instrument making, international, listed, more than

1000 employees.
v Company D: measurement technology and sensor technology, international,

unlisted, more than 1000 employees.
In addition, according to the selection criteria, agile methods are used in at least
parts of the organization in all companies. The fact that, with one exception, these
involved teams in the area of software development and Kanban methods in the
area of production was definitely within expectations. Even though only four
companies were surveyed, very general conclusions can be drawn from the
surveys even without a detailed analysis, which will be examined in more detail
below.
vThe understanding of agility is largely identical.
vHR departments know the way of working, philosophy and therefore the
The needs of agile teams have so far only been met to some extent.
vThe current HR processes do not provide optimal support for

Employees in agile teams.
When we talk about companies below, we always mean the companies surveyed as
part of the work.
Understanding of agility
The term is unanimously associated with the ability to adapt and letting go of
entrenched structures. In addition, with the ability to learn from past actions and
to apply this knowledge successfully and future-oriented in new projects. This can
be related to the term learning organization, which was coined by Peter Senge in
1990 and first mentioned in his book “The Fifth Discipline” (Senge, 2011). This
refers to an organization that is constantly in motion and is able to react to
impulses from within and outside and adapt adequately to new requirements.
Constant changes are viewed as a normal state and not perceived as a disruption.
What is important is that here too it is the people in the organization who
Senge has defined five skills that must be present in a learning organization. In
relation to the topic of agility, the ability to “learn in a team” is important and in
Scrum Teams the Scrum Master is responsible for this. The so-called “alignment” of
team members can be observed as a central element here. The associated merger
can result in synergy effects that go far beyond the individual performance of the
members and increase the willingness to do more. What is crucial is that the
product vision specified by the product owner is pursued and maintained together
by the team.
Even if quick learning certainly represents a competitive advantage in many

industries, companies should, especially in new, unknown situations, “switch off
the trained reflexes and replace them with thoughtfulness and
reorientation” (Rösner & Gloger, 2014, p. 7). “Companies need to find ways to
unlearn the habits of the past and test what will work in the new
environment” (Intelligence Unit, 2014, p. 3), which means nothing other than using
so-called “rearview mirror methods” with a certain degree of caution should be
used in unknown terrain. These methods should be used primarily to solve
recurring, known problems. Therefore, it generally makes sense to decide
depending on the situation where and how existing knowledge from the past
influences future decisions.
Agility is also associated with the ability to quickly adapt processes and procedures
- especially in projects - to acute needs, although highly regulated industries
(finance, medical device manufacturers) have disadvantages here. On the other
hand, in addition to the ability to adapt, there should also be a willingness to
separate knowledge that is no longer needed and to eliminate unnecessary control
and approval processes. However, it is precisely this will that many companies
seem to lack, with only 36% of European companies surveyed by the Economist's
Intelligence Unit stating that they are actively implementing this (Intelligence Unit,
2014, pp. 3, 24). Agility also means, as one company aptly put it, “being able to let
go” and getting rid of old habits.
So-called silo structures are viewed as not very beneficial in an agile environment.
They have a counterproductive effect on the goal of ensuring that problems can be
dealt with by the people who are needed for this, regardless of where they are in
the organization.
What is particularly interesting is the fact that agility is a company value at one of
the companies, but so far the HR managers interviewed have not
no deeper discussion has taken place in connection with agile teams. The interview
certainly motivated people to engage more actively with the question.
Another commonality is the partial degree of penetration typical of many

companies, or to put it another way, the so-called hybrid organizations, in which
classic and agile teams interact coexistingly, especially in the area of product
development. Here it is always the areas of software development and, in two
companies, pilot teams in hardware development that use agile methods. The fact
that a company's HR department was already using agile methods in the area of
recruiting was certainly an unexpected result. However, it is in line with the trends
that the degree of penetration within most organizations varies greatly and areas
that are not SW-related are increasingly starting to work in an agile manner.
The philosophy and working methods of agile teams were only known in detail at
one company and here only at the HR business partners who support these teams.
However, the respondents in the other companies had basic knowledge of this. If
you compare the statements about the understanding of agility with those of
interviewed CEOs, certain parallels but also interesting additions can be observed.
In addition to quick decision-making and flexible management of teams, this group
of people associates transparency of available information and a high-performance
culture with agility (Bersin, 2012, p. 14). Information transparency is inherent in
Scrum teams, and more and more companies are switching to so-called visual
management methods.
The area of performance management was defined as a focus because this area
includes numerous HR processes that all employees come into contact with on a
regular basis. The performance appraisal, the associated performance appraisal,
the goal-setting process and the feedback area can be classified in this area. The
feedback area was integrated into the survey because, among other things, it is
strongly influenced by the respective corporate culture and the lived values. In this
context, feedback is always viewed with the basic attitude of valuing the employee.
The answers given in the interviews and the
However, discussions were only able to identify elements that promote feedback
and enable such a culture.
In retrospect, it would have proven helpful to ask those responsible whether they
have an overview of the various control logics used in their company. what they
mean by that. Even if this was not asked, this aspect, which is quite important in
the context of performance management, is still being discussed in connection
with the recommendations for action and the assignment of agile teams to one of
the logics in Section 4.4.
The content and spacing of the employee interviews differ only slightly
The appraisal interview, between the line manager and the employee “...is an
instrument in which those involved regularly (usually annually with additional
review appointments) or, if necessary, provide specific and event-related content
(such as target agreements, performance appraisals, further training, personal
Discuss feedback, development opportunities, open questions, etc.)” (Wikipedia
topic employee appraisal, 2016).
In accordance with this definition, discussions take place at least once a year at all
companies. Another similarity is the recommendation to have at least one
additional (mid-year) interview, with one company even clearly specifying 3
additional interviews. In addition, the content is structured using standard
documents and is largely defined for all companies. Guidelines are available to
support both employees and supervisors. In addition, without exception,
supervisors receive appropriate training in conducting interviews. However, the
critical question that must be asked here is why only superiors are usually trained
as part of leadership training, while employees are normally only provided with
written guidelines (cf.
The line manager leads the conversation regardless of how the teams work
The responsibility for conducting the conversation rests entirely with the line manager,
who can then bring a project manager or scrum master into the conversation
depending on the situation. One interviewee underlined this form of expanding the
number of participants in the conversation with the statement that the “line manager
must not become the mouthpiece of the project manager or Scrum Master”.
From my own experience, but also from the discussions during the interviews,
problems and misunderstandings arise, especially where information is provided
only be brought into the conversation second or even third hand. A meaningful
communication of praise, criticism and appreciation in this form is very difficult or
even impossible. Typically, such a situation arises when employees of a Scrum
team or a specialist group within a matrix organization are led exclusively by a
Scrum Master or project manager and then have a formal conversation with their
line manager once a year. This is therefore not a specific problem of agile teams
and is more or less pronounced depending on the size of the organization/team
and structure. In such situations, it makes sense to have the discussions together
with the project manager or Scrum Master, which is also practiced in many
companies.
No company conducted specific, customized employee appraisals for employees

from agile teams. This is particularly critical because these employees are in a
permanent feedback and improvement cycle inherent in the system and
subsuming performance reviews once a year can seem anachronistic. This is where
a deeper understanding of the agile way of working and the roles in a Scrum team
could be used profitably. When discussing what such a specific employee interview
could look like, the answers varied widely. While one company assumed that this
additional effort would be met with little acceptance by the line, in another
company the process is currently being modularized, because the current system
is suboptimal and “annoying”. The danger at this point is that the discussion
guidelines will move further and further away from the actual goal of the employee
discussion due to continuous simplifications.
All companies use goals for internal control

All companies use, among other things, goals for corporate management and
define them for a period of one year. It should be noted that only one company
sets the goals for the following year in the last quarter, while the others tend to
only define them during the first quarter.
Defining them in a timely manner not only has the advantage that they can be
coordinated with the budget process, but also that the goals really apply for twelve
and not just nine months. The possible - often disadvantageous - consequences of
defining goals in the course of the first quarter are often goals that are partly have
a “retrospective character” and without a corresponding budget
must be implemented. Much more serious is the fact that it can lead to employees
viewing the process as a purely formal event that ends with the goals being
entered into the software tool and is then forgotten. Anyone who has ever
calculated the costs of the process will quickly notice that there is a need for action.
In addition, target agreement cascades that drag on for months are often viewed
by employees and management as “...an additional burden, without any
supporting effect” (Schrader, 2010).
Individual goals up to the employee level versus goals only for management level
While one company has since this year completely dispensed with individual goals
for all employees, the other three companies assign individual goals down to the
employee level. In addition to the abolition of individual goals, the individual bonus
goals for management in one of three divisions in the company surveyed have
already been replaced by a single operational team goal. This goal is defined jointly
by the division's management team and then coordinated with the management.
Since the response from employees was very positive and the costs for the process
were significantly reduced, it can be assumed that the model will continue to
become established. What helped in this context was the calculation of the costs
for the process and the argument that this greatly simplifies the focus on
individual priorities of the division. In addition, the coordination process, which
otherwise leads to goals that do not contradict each other in the best case, can be
significantly simplified.
In companies that work with individual goals, goals are often passed on one-to-one
by a team leader/project manager to the subordinate employees. This process of
“target inheritance” is technically particularly simple if suitable software solutions
such asSuccess factorsbe used. If the target recipient has a say, it is a target
agreement and in the case of “inheritance” it is a so-called target setting.
Both methods differ fundamentally in terms of the possibility of influencing goals

and co-determination by employees, but both follow the logic of management by
objectives (MbO) described by Peter Drucker in 1954 (Drucker, 1954). In the classic
MbO described by Drucker, “...the goals are broken down top-down, with these
being set as one-sided
can be defined by the superior management or by a target agreement in the sense

of a negotiation..." (Meyer-Ferreira, 2015, p. 165) between the respective parties.
What is important in this context is that Drucker does not use his system to assign
intended goals for each and every employee and to control them based on this, as
is the practice in many companies today. Drucker was “apparently still aware that
goal-driven managers must also have the opportunity to lead employees through
process control (or other logic) under certain circumstances…” (Meyer-Ferreira,
2015, p. 152).
Even if the coordination costs for target setting are significantly lower, companies
often buy a lack of identification with the targets and lower employee commitment.
Drucker describes it very well: “This requires each manager to develop and set the
objective of his unit himself. Higher management must of course reserve the
power to approve or disapprove those objectives. But their development is part of
a manager's responsibility. Indeed, it is his first responsibility. It means, too, that
every manager should responsibly participate in the development of the objectives
of the higher unit, of which he is a part. To "give him a sense of participation" is not
enough. “Being a manager demands the assumption of genuine
responsibility” (Drucker, 1954, p. 118).
Companies “...all too often try to create this commitment exclusively through
financial remuneration” (Schrader, 2010), which is of little use, especially for
knowledge workers who work in the area of product development and innovation.
It's no secret that financial incentives are only useful for highly repetitive work and
are less suitable for managing knowledge workers. With regard to the described
way of working in agile teams, team goals combined with well-coordinated
individual goals can be a sensible approach, which is why this idea is discussed in
more detail in Section 4.3.
All companies use an MbO process for all employee groups

Although none of the companies make a difference in the type of goal setting for
classic and agile teams, the guidelines do give line managers some scope for
action. For companies that work with individual goals, HR recommends half-yearly
reviews. In a company, depending on the software solution used, it is even possible
to replace or adjust irrelevant goals at any time. Here it is solely up to the teams
and their superiors to implement or demand this. An exact statement of what
percentage of the goals according to the
Unfortunately, it was not possible to adjust the initial allocation, but the statement
was that there were only very few.
The advantage of a software solution lies in the easy way to evaluate goals and
make adjustments/additions if necessary. The requirement to give agile teams
goals that allow both joint development within the team and simultaneous
coordination with the department's goals is generally also possible with the
existing tools and processes. However, if this is complex, some When faced with
manually processed forms and the associated costs, it is entirely understandable
that there is no differentiation in the process. One company explained that the
line's acceptance of this would probably be low because it would not see the
benefit.
Team goals: Possible in terms of processes and tools, but not yet used everywhere
The final questions related to the use, methodology and form of assessment of
team goals, if used. In the event that no team goals are used for control, the
respondents should at least deal with them theoretically. To a certain extent, the
question already anticipated that this form of goals makes more sense for agile
teams than individual goals.
The use and understanding of these types of goals vary. Team goals can be
assigned or agreed upon in the same way as individual goals, following the goal-
setting logic. If software tools like the aforementioned Success Factors exist, they
can be broken down to the next level with very little effort. However, team goals
can also be agreed bottom-up between a Scrum Team, the Scrum Master and the
Project Owner, among others. In most cases, the line manager is named as the
person responsible for the evaluation, but often together with other stakeholders.
Interestingly, the team is only mentioned in one case, which may be due to the
very different understanding of team goals.
360° feedback is only used regularly in one company

to
360° feedback methods are not only suitable as a management development tool,
but also provide line managers with a valid tool for assessing the behavior and
agile
performance of their employees, especially in work environments. This is
especially important because he is not usually part of the team in an agile working
environment.
The 360° feedback method is only firmly established in one of the companies and is
used regularly, although the benefits are currently not visible to HR. At other
companies, the method is only used situationally or to a limited extent in the form
of 180° feedback (also called “upward feedback”). It should also be added that a
company deliberately did not activate the function in the software solution used. A
reason for this was not given.
Agile Classic mindset remark

Mindset
Team focused Individual focused. Both aspects must be taken into

account in agile performance
management.
Continuous Quarterly to annual Continuously within the framework of
improvement analysis of the Scrum/Kanban structure, e.g. retrospectives
need for improvement. and interaction with SM and PO.
Commitment Agreement (Push). Pull versus push principle.

(pull)
Primary Predominantly extrinsic Based on the assumption that

intrinsic motivation by linking service specialists in the area of product
motivation provision with remuneration. development are usually intrinsically
motivated.
Short term Long term goals. Each in a long-term

Goals framework.
Continuous Assessment on a more A feedback culture can also be

Feedback or less regular basis practiced in non-agile
distances. organizations.
Constant Formalized communication in Communication within the

communication meetings, One2Ones. organization through PO role.
within the
teams
transparency Use of classic reporting Transparency through, for example,
tools (reports, visual management methods.
presentations, cockpits).
Timely Hierarchy-related Impediments (obstacles) are

remove from Delay. removed with a time delay.
impediments
Table 13: Agile versus classic performance management modified according to (Gloger &
Häusling, 2011, p. 99).
In all cases, it is the HR department that supports the process, although in a

company the Scrum Master is involved. The Scrum Master's ability to promote the
feedback culture in addition to the actual Scrum process plays an important role.
For this reason, it is important that employees who take on this role also have the
appropriate qualifications - not just the skills, but also the skills and the relevant
experience. Even if the role of the Scrum Master is not yet precisely defined in most
companies, feedback, team building and the associated conflict management are
trained as part of internal or external leadership training. Specific training for the
role of Scrum Master is usually purchased externally.
With this method of feedback, in addition to the competence for implementation

and follow-up with the team and the supervisor, the time and costs must also be
taken into account. Even if the costs can be significantly reduced by using modern
software tools, the questionnaires should not keep employees busy for hours.
Questions that can be answered in a quarter of an hour make sense. For a better
overview, the differences in performance management for classic and agile
organizations are summarized and commented on in Table 13.
The questions chosen in the area of competency management focused on any

career paths already defined for employees in agile teams and the responsibility
for the personnel development of this group of employees. In addition, existing
understanding of the topic of role versus position and the associated role of the
line manager should be inquired about. The background to the question, as
already explained in the derivation, was the firmly defined but greatly reduced
roles in Scrum Teams. In addition to the role of Scrum Master and Product Owner,
there areonlythe team where every employee is simply a team member,
regardless of what their job description says. For companies that adapt this form of
work and have a rather strong hierarchy and highly diversified position titles, it is
advisable to address this topic seriously as part of a change management process.
The survey showed very clearly that none of the companies have yet dealt with the
issue of career paths in detail. This is not particularly problematic for companies
with a flat hierarchy
Titles play a secondary role. However, one company saw various opportunities in
reducing it to the three Scrum roles. In this way, any existing silo structures can be
dissolved and the employees needed to solve problems can be brought together in
the Scrum Teams. In addition, through the practice ofScrumalso new development
opportunities towards Scrum Master and Product Owner.
Very interesting results emerged from the discussion about who is responsible for
personnel development in agile teams. The companies largely agree that this
responsibility clearly lies with the line manager. However, it became clear during
the discussion that a conflict of goals can arise, especially in Scrum teams that are
very focused on the Scrum Master. Especially if the responsibilities are not clearly
clarified with the Scrum Master. In practice, in two of the companies there is an
agreement between the line manager and the Scrum Master or project manager.
The culture of the company and the attitude of the line managers play a crucial
role here. However, as long as line managers only define the value of their position
based on the number of directly subordinate employees and their own budget,
there will be conflicts, as in the example discussed, that must be professionally
addressed and resolved.
Specialist careers as a possible path

In addition to the classic management careers, there are specialist careers in all
companies. Here it is of central importance that the positions are equivalent to
those in management careers, as these are viewed as less attractive based on
experience from your own company. Here, management must also strive for
equality with regard to the wage structure.
HC Marketing
The focus in the area of HC marketing was on the area of recruiting team
members of agile teams. Even if recruiting only represents a small area within the
cross-sectional function of HC marketing, the correct selection of new employees is
often the first step towards successful and compatible team expansion.
An important basic requirement for successful recruitment is not only knowledge

of how people work and the roles in agile teams, but also of the relevant hard and
especially soft skills. All companies pay great attention to this aspect during
recruitment. It is the soft skills in particular that often decide whether an employee
will join an agile team
fits or not. In Scrum Teams, the willingness to actively share knowledge and
experience, but also the ability to deal with direct feedback, is a crucial factor.
There are similar factors for Scrum Masters and Product Owners. This knowledge
should be available to all people involved in the process. For this reason, it was
asked whether there were already competency profiles for them in addition to the
Scrum Team roles.
Competency profiles for Scrum roles are still missing in all companies
The answers to this result in a mixed picture, which, however, fits well into the
overall context. The roles are known in the HR department at three companies, but
usually only superficially, or the knowledge depends heavily on the area of the HR
business partner. The skills profiles for roles that are essential for job
advertisements and selection are still missing in all companies. However, these are
an important prerequisite, especially for the selective and timely expansion of agile
teams. Especially since the need for additional personnel in agile teams often
arises without a long warning period and then has to be met in a timely manner.
Building an internal pipeline or pool of suitable talent, as is done at a company, can
pay off very quickly.
Future team members will be involved in the recruitment process
In all companies, future team members are involved in recruiting. This is

independent of whether they are new employees for agile or classic teams. This
complex process is sometimes even perceived as excessive by HR in a company.
Only two companies have made a clear statement regarding the team's right to
veto. Here the team ultimately decides whether the new employee fits into the
team or not. Another company makes it important that future work colleagues can
interview the applicant without the future supervisor so that the conversation is
not influenced by the supervisor's presence. The extent to which this makes sense
when expanding agile teams can certainly be questioned. The team members
should not behave differently in the presence of the supervisor or the Scrum
Master. This could be a sign of distrust, which in agile environments would need to
be addressed immediately by the Scrum Master.
Derivation of recommendations for action 61
4. Derivation of recommendations for action
One goal of the interviews was to take stock and identify topics and areas in which
HR currently needs to take action to better support employees in agile working
environments. The selection of the focal points discussed below was primarily
determined by the answers of the interview participants. Another criterion is the
expected benefit and the associated chances of acceptance and implementation.
Conducting expert interviews with some open questions, instead of an online

survey, not only answered the questions asked, but also revealed additional
insights and assessments from those responsible between the questions. Based on
the questions and the deficits identified, a company has already carried out a
cross-border workshop in its own corporate environment in order to address
relevant sub-areas. Specific recommendations for action should be developed for
the following selection of sub-areas:
v Agility and agile workingunderstandandsupport.
O Scrumas an example of an agile management framework.
O Building skills in various HR areas.
O Methods for acquiring knowledge in an application-related manner.
O The role of HR.
v Employee discussions and goal setting for agile teams.
O Question the employee interview process.
O Rethinking goal setting for agile teams using team goals as an example.
O Understand control logic.
v Recruiting employees for agile teams.
O Interaction between team and HR in the process.
O Recruitment in the team.
The topic of career planning is not dealt with specifically, but only in passing with
the recommendations for action in the area of recruitment, as this would be a
separate topic for further work.
Understand agility and agile working in order to optimally support it
Agility means, among other things, consistent focus on customer needs. Isn't that
what HR should already be committed to in its (joint) function as a support
organization?
It is all the more astonishing that the topic of agility is not yet at the top of the
agenda in many HR departments. Especially since more and more products consist
largely of software (so-called embedded systems) and the trend towards agile
methods is also becoming clear in the area of hardware development. According
to a study by the Koblenz University of Applied Sciences, 27% of those surveyed are
already working with agile methods outside of software developmentScrum is the
most widespread at 86% (Komus, 2014). Of course, companies don't just consist of
product development. However, if you also add the Kanban techniques that are
often used in production, there are already two large areas of process organization
and other departments are likely to follow. The trend continues to rise!
Theme methodology Remarks
Philosophy & Values Shadowing, specialist Conferences/workshops

conferences, literature, visit together with
interviews with employees. specialists; Carry out agile
projects in the HR area with
the support of agile
working employees.
Way of working Shadowing. Scrum meetings especially daily

stand-ups, retrospectives and
planning meetings as
Visit “Shadow”.
needs Interviews with employees Topic goal setting, feedback,

and managers. employee discussions,
Recruitment, performance
management.
Interfaces Interviews with employees and Agile-Classic Departments.

managers, coaching of
managers, Scrum Masters.
Competency profiles Literature, Scrum Teams. All Scrum roles: Scrum

Master, Product Owner,
Team members.
Values Workshop with cross- supplement any,

functional team. existing
Competency models.
Table 14: Topic areas and methods for getting to know agile working environments.
A prerequisite for optimal support of agile teams is a basic understanding of the

philosophy by which they work. This is not about HR knowing how a Scrum Master
or Product Owner works in detail. However, knowledge and an understanding that
he leads the team laterally, without disciplinary line responsibility, should be
present. Further examples include measures in the area of coaching and
collaboration with line managers, but also the filling of a Scrum Master position.
Without an appropriate understanding of roles, knowledge of the required soft
skills and competence profiles, it will hardly be possible to support the teams in
recruiting (see Section 4.5).
From this context it can be said that “What"identify specific topic areas in which
specialist knowledge of everyday work and an awareness of existing areas of
tension and interface problems must be developed. The key topic areas that need
to be addressed are listed in Table 14 along with an appropriate methodology. The
choice of methodology and the method itself are explained later in the same
section. The list does not claim to be complete and can be supplemented with
additional points depending on the company.
Know interfaces and anticipate problems

In general, interfaces always harbor a certain potential for conflict and it is
advisable to be aware of this, as tensions affect a company's ability to act and
potentially increase coordination costs. Since interfaces are a subject area that
usually receives little attention, they should be discussed in more detail, especially
since one of these interfaces is not obvious.
This category includes the easily overlooked interfaces in (partially) agile

organizations, which arise where the agile, iterative and rather short-term
planning is “translated” within the hierarchy into medium-term planning for
management. Depending on the company, this can already be at the development
team-development management level, but also at the development management-
management level. The need of the management, regardless of whether it is a
public company or not, is binding dates for medium-term planning. One company
put it in the form that the teams are given timelines by the stakeholders, but the
path to achieving the goals is up to them. The question of where the translation
takes place
A different interface inevitably arises where agile and non-agile departments

interact. In the area of product development in hybrid organizations, this typically
consists of hardware and software development, but also marketing and
purchasing. Knowledge of this should definitely be used when advising the line in
order to identify areas of conflict in good time.
Shadowing will only be briefly explained below, as most of the methods listed in
Table 14 are self-explanatory.
Shadowing - observe your customers and learn
A practical way to establish specific knowledge in the HR department would be

shadowing. In this qualitative method, which has its origins in consumer research,
a person is accompanied by an observer like a “shadow”. However, the technology
is also very suitable for recording the work processes and procedures, but also the
communication of a Scrum team in a specific application. Combined with targeted
interviews, the required knowledge can be built up very quickly. It is important that
special needs in the respective corporate context are also taken into account, such
as the organizational framework of the department. The costs for this are
manageable, as a few hours in the various Scrum meetings and interviews in the
off-peak hours are often enough.
The authors Gloger and Häusling go one step further and advocate “...creating
something like job rotation programs for the HR managers themselves so that they
can see exactly what it is about” (Gloger & Häusling, 2011, p . 209). They base their
recommendation on the observation that HR employees often switch off when
topics relating to the teams' everyday work are discussed during the Scrum
introduction phase. However, the authors are silent about what this should look
like in detail and due to the lack of specialist knowledge it will hardly be possible to
use this type of learning. Here it would be more advisable for HR to design a
project such as the revision of the employee interview process in an agile manner
with the support of an experienced Scrum Master.
One goal should be to know the needs of teams practicing Scrum so well that the
introduction of agile methods in other areas could also be supported. It should
also be possible to provide advice when choosing a suitable partner for the
company. The latter because HR knows what is important and which skills are
relevant for the individual company context. This would support an orderly rollout
and prevent departments from purchasing consulting services and training
individually. In addition, there is already an awareness of the worries, fears and
expected resistance that can arise when hierarchies become flatter and titles have
less value.
HR business partner only asaPart of the solution
After a suitable methodology has been defined, it should be determined where in

HR the knowledge should usefully be built up.
In many companies, the HR business model is based on the three pillar model
published by Ulrich in 1997 (Ulrich, 1997). In addition to the Centers of Expertise
and Shared Service Centers, it is based in particular on the core area of the HR
Business Partner, which is why it is often called that.
HR)Business)) Strategic HR)Business)

Partner;)HR)Management partner
Strategic)Partner Change agent

• Agile) strategy/ and) • Change Management)
organizational development while)more agile)
• Strategist.) Transitions
Personnel requirements planning • Competency analyzes for
• Management)der) Scrum roles
Key positions (Scrum) • Team)and)Management)
Master) Development
Processes People
Administrative)Expert Employee) Champion
• Tools for setting goals • Management)and)Team)
• Monitoring Coaching
• Electronic) • Management)der)
Employee interview forms interfaces)agile/
classic) organization
HR specialists HR)Business)
HR services Operational partner
Figure 8: HR model by Dave Ulrich supplemented by tasks and responsible roles in an agile
environment (Ulrich, 1997).
Ulrich defines four roles in his HRM model, which is presented in the form of a
matrix. One pair of values covers the strategic - operational part and the other the
process - people area. Without going into the advantages and disadvantages of the
model, it must be kept in mind that Ulrich developed the model in the form of “HR
as a business partner for the organization” and certainly not a “super HR position”
in the form of an HR Wanted to create Business Partners that covers all four areas
of the matrix in terms of competence. It makes much more sense to build up the
knowledge of the individual HR roles in the individually necessary depth and not to
succumb to the temptation to focus primarily on the HR business partner.
Strategic partners
HR, in its role as a strategic partner, should support management in implementing

the business strategy, but also actively drive the decision-making process on
strategic, HR-relevant topics.
This role falls, among other things, into the remit of the HR Business Partner but
also that of the HR management. The difference lies in the interface. While the
business partner supports the management and executives, the HR management
is responsible for competently dealing with the topic at management level. It
should be noted that the group of managers must definitely include the Scrum
Masters, as they occupy key positions in the Scrum organization. Management and
executives must be advised, especially when introducing agile methods, about the
organizational changes and potential areas of conflict that are usually associated
with them, but of course also about the associated opportunities.
Change agent
Another important role, which is often largely taken on by the business partners, is
that of a change agent. This means, among other things, the active support of
change processes. Numerous authors compare the role in an agile or in an
organization undergoing change with that of a catalyst cf. (Gloger & Häusling,
2011, p. 39) or a “secret weapon” (Eyholzer, 2015, min. 6:58). According to these
authors, HR should actively help to establish an agile mindset at different levels of
the company. The focus is on managers, who must be shown the benefits, but who
must also be made clearly aware of their associated role shift. If this doesn't
happen
If you agree to give up control and decision-making authority, an agile

management framework like Scrum will not be able to be successfully established.
The authors mentioned combine the change agent role with the promotion of
communication between different company and employee levels as well as the
demand for a corresponding adaptation of personnel instruments. Both with the
aim of achieving alignment with the needs of the agile parts of the organization.
The positive side aspect is that the system is being rethought and thus also
becomes fairer to those parts of the organization that do not (yet) work in an agile
manner.
Administrative Experts
The focus of this role is on designing and implementing efficient HR processes.

Here it is the HR services that, together with the HR specialists for personnel
development and performance management, have to design the systems and tools
in such a way that needs such as the flexible adjustment of targets and a
transparent presentation of the goals must be taken into account. The information
for this can come either from the HR business partners or, if the adjustments are
implemented as a project, from the stakeholders. Ultimately, the systems are
intended to reduce manual processes and thus save costs, although these
requirements hardly differ from those of the classic organization.
Employee Champion
Ulrich sees HR in this role as an intermediary between employees, management

and the executive board. The idea behind this is to increase employee commitment
and, as a positive effect, company performance. In an agile environment, there are
specifically problems at interfaces and those that arise due to unclear
responsibilities. But there can also be questions about the personal career
planning of employees in Scrum Teams to which HR should have an answer.
If one were to follow Ulrich's 3-pillar model, the HR business partners would
primarily take care of top management, the employees, lower and middle
management would be looked after via the HR service centers. The question of
whether this strict separation makes sense in an agile environment remains to be
seen. The term “Peoples People”, which is common in Anglo-Saxon countries,
implies that contact persons are available and are not limited to a hotline that is
operated from an external service center. Agility also means speed and quick
responses. Agile customers are
more demanding in this regard, which should always be kept in mind when
organizing services. A sensible approach is certainly to provide good support for
the Scrum Masters. Since they have skills in the areas of conflict management and
team building, they can relieve the business partners of a lot of work.
Competence and trust as success factors

In summary, it can be said that the competencies in the most diverse areas of the
HR organization should be gradually built up in different depths and focuses. The
various competencies are broken down and weighted according to HR roles in
Table 15. The HR Business Partner plays an important, but not the only, main role
in its function as a bridgehead between HR and business. In the end, it is the effort
of many participants that must work together to support agile parts of the
organization. However, it can only work if HR is given enough acceptance by the
business. Precisely because many companies “...are still far from seeing their
human resources department as a partner” (Stienen, 2012, p. 1), this offers a good
opportunity to
MR HR business HC competence performance

Line partner marketing management management
Agile
transformation xxx xx x x x
and strategy
Career planning
x x x xxx x
in agile teams
Objective for
x xx xxx
agile teams
recruitment x xx xxx
Branding x x xx
Variable wages xx x xx
Collaborative
x xxx x
Learn
Table 15: Competency matrix weighted according to HR roles, where: xxx = expert; xx =
Professional; x = Basics corresponds.
The adaptation of employee discussions and team goals for agile teams described
in the next paragraph is very suitable as an agile pilot project.
Employee interviews for agile teams

“In general, an employee interview is a planned, content-prepared conversation
between managers and employees” (Gajdacz, Winkler, & Hofbauer, 2004, p. 2). It is
clearly differentiated from event-related, mostly subject-specific discussions due to
its formal character. In many companies, this formal character is underlined by
specified time windows for implementation and predefined forms in paper or
electronic form.
There is no classic employee interview with fixed, defined content. Rather,

company-specific, different content is presented in one or more, at different times.
discussed in independent discussions. These can be development, performance or
goal-setting discussions or even location assessments.
All companies surveyed use defined specification documents and train their
superiors in special training courses. In addition, guidelines are available for
everyone involved – including employees. This is in view of the fact that the desired
effect of the performance appraisal can only be achieved if all interviewees have
the appropriate skills. Gajdacz et al. are of the opinion that cooperative
“...collaboration in companies, businesses, institutions or facilities...
[essentially]...depends on the quality of the conversation between superiors and
their employees...” (Gajdacz, Winkler, & Hofbauer, 2004, p. 2).
In addition to the skills, there is also the awareness and understanding of it, Why
This instrument can make an important contribution to communication between
people in the company, essential for the achievable benefits and anticipated added
value. This awareness on both sides is the basis for successful implementation. It is
all the more surprising that it is unusual to train employees accordingly (in addition
to reading the guidelines themselves) and to teach them about the goals and
benefits of correctly conducted employee appraisals. The fact that an investment
could be worthwhile becomes even clearer when the costs for the process listed in
Table 16 are examined in more detail. Implementation can be initiated by HR in the
form of collaborative team learning sessions. This method, often referred to as we-
learning, is preferable to interactive e-learning because of the direct interaction
between participants. This would allow larger groups to be trained together cost-
effectively.
Cost Expense To use
Time spent on regular training get motivation,

120 a) the supervisor (classroom) promote cooperation,
30 b) the employees (we-learning) Increase efficiency and
Retain employees.
enable feedback,
evaluate performance,
Time spent on
Communicate goals and
180 c) Preparation of superiors
120 d) Preparation of employees Evaluate goals.
360 e) Implementation
120 f) Post-processing
HR systems/tools (e.g. Umantis) Worldwide access,

10 g) Maintenance, licenses Standardization,
10 h) Maintenance of forms comparability
(metrics),
guidance,
Cost savings.
Total CHF 950(assuming an hourly rate of CHF 120)
Table 16: Cost estimate for employee appraisals and potential benefits.
When it comes to costs, it should be taken into account that they can vary
depending on the internal hourly rate and the number of necessary conversations.
Furthermore, it is not trivial to compare the costs incurred with a measurable
benefit, for example in the form of average length of service, the degree of goal
achievement or the results of employee surveys. A similar calculation could be
made for the MBO process, with the costs being roughly the same, but also partly.
overlap because the goal setting is usually part of the employee discussions.
An interim conclusion is that if employee appraisals are used as a tool, they should
not simply be a compulsory exercise at the end of the year. The costs of up to 1,000
Swiss francs are far too high for this.
According to a representative survey by the personnel service providerMeta adviceIn

2012, more than 50 percent of those surveyed in Germany found the discussions to be
amateurish and the evaluation arbitrary, although these results can certainly also be
transferred to Switzerland. A huge opportunity is being wasted here and the benefits
are not being realized, if they were ever defined at all.
But what does this have to do with the question of the need for support from HR
and the way agile teams work and what alternatives are available?
Learning from Scrum and an active, continuous feedback culture

At this point, the classic organization can learn and benefit from the feedback
culture that is strong in agile teams and use it as a trigger for a revision. Scrum
teams give each other regular feedback, not only on the technical side, but also on
each other's behavior. Feedback is not only given to each other, but also to the
Scrum Master and the client - represented by the project owner. Due to the system,
there is no “backlog” of praise and criticism, which in the most negative case is
then addressed by the line manager once a year, but is not necessarily resolved. In
addition, a well-trained Scrum Master can professionally address and resolve
conflicts in the team.
The challenge is to design a process under the given conditions that benefits both
classic and agile teams. It became clear in the surveys that individual processes for
employee appraisals for agile teams would be difficult to find a majority in the line.
At this point it is worth finding out what the line actually expects from the
employee interview.
Whywe want Whatdo we want to Howwe want that

Employee interviews achieve this? Implement process
lead?
• Define benefits • Develop goals • Training concept

• Common • Interfunctional • Conversational
Understanding teams Guides
work out • Define content • Tool usage
• Role definitions • Controlling
Figure 9: Revision/adjustment of the MAG process.
If these expectations are not being met today and the goals and benefits are
unclear, the existing process must be questioned anyway. HR, in the role of
process owner, is responsible for implementing the process.
The most important steps of such an implementation are described below, starting
from the “why”, with the idea of making the adaptation iterative and highly customer-
centered and carrying out the project in an agile manner.
Why do we (as a company) want to conduct employee appraisals?
In order to generate the best possible benefit, it is advisable to create clarity about
Whythe discussions are even being held. There are certainly companies in which
this question has not been asked for a long time, especially by employees but also
by management. The existing process is carried out every year, although almost no
one sees the added value. The performance appraisal is primarily intended to give
the employee feedback on their own performance and information about where
they currently stand. In addition, a comparison of self-image and the image of
others should be carried out. However, employees should also have the
opportunity to give their superior feedback on their performance in a formalized
setting. Under no circumstances should it be the only option that allows employees
to talk to their superiors once a year about their own development and address
feedback.
As long as there is no common understanding of this within the organization, the

benefits will be limited while the costs remain the same.
For the derivation of theWhy?An example from sports should be used again. It
would be unthinkable for a high-performance athlete to only speak to his coach
once or twice a year, which figuratively also applies to employees. “Reviewing the
whole year at once, thinking about the personality of each employee, their
strengths and weaknesses and deriving goals and measures from them is
exhausting in such a compressed time format” (Gloger & Häusling, 2011, p . 101)
and generally impossible. This is particularly true in constellations with large
management spans and matrix organizations. Here, the feedback discussion with
the disciplinary superior, who hardly sees the employee during the assessment
period, can quickly lead to difficult situations.
Praise, criticism and appreciation only have a timely effect
Scrum teams, on the other hand, know very wellWhyPermanent and timely
feedback is beneficial. They live a permanent Deming circle and try
to continually improve themselves and their performance. You look through it

Scrumspecified process as C ls evil.
“Plan what and how you will implement it out, check together with the
team, whether he goal-oriented and beneficial
were, reflect, etc
A
C
D
P
Figure 10: Deming circle.
The best way to improve is through direct, transparent and timely communication,
which also includes actively sharing knowledge and mistakes. The moderation is
taken over by the Scrum Master, who relieves a manager of part of the team
development work and thus frees up time and space for other activities. The fact
that certain cultural prerequisites such as trust are required for this is explained in
more detail in Section 5.
The common definition of theWhy?It could look like this: We conduct employee
interviews,
v because we want to regularly evaluate the employee's performance,
v because we want to agree and evaluate goals with the employee,
v because we want to ensure formalized, regular feedback,
v because we want to promote the professional development of the employee.
In the role of process owner, the main area of responsibility for HR in this phase is
primarily to initiate the adjustment, identify the stakeholders and address the issue
at management level based on a cost-benefit analysis.
With the completion of this first phase, it is necessary to define with the
stakeholders, “What"the company wants to reach through employee discussions.
It is also useful to define the goals together with those affected in the organization.
A suitable solution for this is to set up a project group “...in which representatives
from all hierarchical levels and interest groups in the company...” (Federal Ministry
of Economics and Technology, 2012, p. 3) work together under the guidance of HR
or a consultant. The better the team represents the different interest groups -
including those of agile teams - the higher the expected acceptance and the
resulting benefit. Below are some examples of goals that can be used as a starting
point.
v Promote topic-specific communication.
v Promoting a dedicated, regular dialogue between superiors and employees.
v Use as a central element in personnel development.
v Identification of talents.
v Strengthening identification with company goals and values.
v Communicating recognition and appreciation.
v Promoting cooperation.
v Binding employees to the company (retention)
In an agile working environment with leadership constellations, such as those

shown as an example in Figure 7, the appraisal interview can also offer the
opportunity to discuss longer-term development opportunities with the line
manager. In this case, it makes sense to clearly define the content of the
conversation in order to achieve a clear distinction from more technically focused
conversations between the Scrum Master and the employee, which leads directly
to the final phase. This must contain the details of the process and the “How"be
defined during implementation. Under no circumstances should the introduction
be neglected.
Why not make the process agile and therefore interfunctional and thereby ensure
acceptance from the start and increase the benefits?
The adaptation and introduction does not necessarily have to be done in an agile
manner, but an iterative approach using several prototypes and a subsequent test
by a selected group of employees is recommended. This is not only for reasons of
acceptance, but also for reasons of covering needs. The results and feedback must
then be implemented into the model intended for the organization-wide roll-out.
Also
Although the process may sound complicated, it is a common and tried-and-tested

process in product development that ultimately pays off in terms of costs. It should
be borne in mind that “...the majority of costs normally arise in operation and not
in development” (Meyer-Ferreira, 2015, p. 289) and the costs for maintenance and
implementation are determined precisely here. The clearer the process, the lower
the effort required for training and the associated costs. HR will have to take on
this function later. Investing in a clear training concept that can also be
implemented by line employees pays off here. This includes not only company-
specific discussion guidelines, but also predefined training courses that explain the
concept and implementation.
Decoupling of conversations
An often described trend is the coupling of performance appraisals, goal setting

and development discussions. Although this may have advantages in terms of
reduced time expenditure, it also leads to a defocusing of the conversation. Some
of the companies surveyed deliberately decouple the conversations, which makes
sense in order to increase the focus of the conversations. With regard to the
distribution of roles, the process should also take into account the leadership
constellation in agile teams and clearly separate the role of the supervisor from
that of the Scrum Master. This can ensure that the medium to long-term
development of the employee is addressed by the disciplinary supervisor and the
technical, methodological development by the Scrum Master.
Agile teams as apostles
Given that many companies have agile departments, the knowledge available
there should definitely also be used for the rollout. Employees from this group
should not only help shape the process, but also be able to actively support the
introduction as “apostles”. Our own experience has shown that short initiatives
initiated by HR with short lectures achieve little or no goal at all. Here it makes
more sense to involve employees.
Alternatives or additions to the formal appraisal interview

Another way to structure the process is the milestone discussions described by
Gloger and Häusling. “These should at least
take place quarterly and have an in-depth character” (Gloger & Häusling, 2011, p.
103) in relation to defined development goals between the disciplinary superior
and the employee. They are intended to serve as a “compass” in the employee’s
career development, which is supported by their superior.
It should not be ignored at this point that the topic of employee appraisals and the
performance appraisals that are usually associated with them is extremely
controversial. Samuel Culbert calls for “Get Rid of the Performance Review”,
arguing that it undermines morale, discourages teamwork and has no impact on
“pay per performance” (Culbert, 2008). This is because the salary is primarily
determined by external market factors and little by the performance assessment of
the superior. As a possible solution, he suggests that instead of a performance
review, a performance preview be carried out, in which mutual accountability is the
focus. “In contrast to one-side-accountable reviews, performance previews are
reciprocally accountable discussions about how boss and employee are going to
work together even more effectively than they did in the past. Previews weld fates
together. The boss’s skin is now in the game” (Culbert, 2008).
In summary, it can be said that HR's need for support as a process owner is not
limited to moderation during any revision of the process, but also to the adequate
composition of the team and the comparison with the expectations of
management. In addition, the introduction and maintenance of the process must
be taken over by HR.
While there are advocates who want to abolish the process entirely, that's not
necessarily a good solution. Employee discussions, if used correctly in the
respective corporate context, represent a valuable tool for controlling both agile
and traditional parts of the organization. In addition, the discussions can also be
understood as gentle pressure for everyone involved to get actively involved. Of
course, poor leadership cannot be compensated for by good employee interview
concepts and will not get better as a result.
Since the goal-setting process is often part of employee discussions, this part and
the requirements for the process in relation to supporting agile teams will be
discussed below.
Goal setting in an agile environment
Peter Drucker’s basic idea about “leading through goals” was actually a good one.
Especially when you consider the time at which he wrote the concept. By means of
jointly developed goals between management and employees, everyone involved
should not only be more closely involved, but also aligned with the company's
goals. In addition, an independent, responsible and motivating way of working
should be promoted.
In most companies, this method has become the standard in the area of target
agreement logic and the degree of target achievement is often directly linked to
the payment of a bonus or variable salary component.
The employee appraisal is often used to assess the achievement of goals for the
past year and to define goals for the following year. The increasing dynamism in
many industries and the associated short-lived nature of project goals is
diametrically opposed to the lived reality of a one-year rhythm of goal definition
that is practiced in over 80% of companies. This was the result of a data collection
by the consulting company Saaman AG, in which over 7,000 managers and
employees were surveyed (Endres, 2011). The statement in one of the interviews
that “goals are quickly forgotten as soon as they are entered into the software tool”
corresponds to another result of the study mentioned, according to which only
27% of employees knew their own goals.
Since the topic of goal setting and compensation strategies would be a researchas
question suitable for a separate master's thesis, only selected goal setting
approaches applicable to agile teams and background information to be taken into
account will be discussed here. The model here is an approach that has been
successfully implemented based on our own experience. Furthermore, the basic
assumption is made that no distinction is made between employees of agile and
classic teams, which is common in hybrid organizations.
HR employees and managers should be aware that agile teams usually consist of
specialists who belong to the group of knowledge workers that has already been
described several times. They always perform as a team and therefore the output
is not linear, i.e. equal to the sum of their individual performances.
In terms of logic, it is rather a complex, emergent business system in which the

output has little or no impact at all
can be traced back to the individual. Which is why it consequently makes little
sense to assign individual performance goals, which may then counteract team
performance and collaborative problem solving.
Content and individualization and time horizon
Individual goals should only be development goals that are agreed upon in
consultation between employees, Scrum Master and supervisor. These should then
also have a longer-term horizon and can be regularly reviewed in the milestone
discussions already described. Performance goals, on the other hand, should only
be assigned as team goals and relate to a time frame of less than 3 months. This
separation of long and short-term goals is well compatible with the way agile
teams work and should also be compatible with most systems.
Responsibilities for setting goals

In all companies surveyed, responsibility and responsibility for setting goals lies
with the disciplinary supervisor. It certainly makes sense to consider to what extent
a regulated agreement with the Scrum Master can be integrated into the process,
if this has not already taken place. HR should be aware of potential conflicts of
interest that can arise here and mediate in the role of “partner for the business”.
Performance measurement in the team
A major weakness of most goal setting systems is the lack of continuity in checking
the degree of achievement. It therefore makes no sense for either classic or agile
parts of the organization to agree on goals (or in the worse case, assign them) and
lose sight of them during the year. One could argue that this is positive for team
collaboration, as conflicting, individual goals cannot cause any harm. But especially
with sensible, individual development goals, it would be money lost. Milestones
that are set by the manager together with the employee or the team are suitable
for regular status checks and possible adjustments if these have changed. Being
agile also means adapting, supplementing or replacing goals when necessary,
Goal setting in the team as an example
The following model is an approach that was successfully carried out in an agile
team. The starting point was new
Team that should provide performance in the area of requirements engineering

within a department. In terms of the process, all employees should also have
individual goals, although these were not linked to a variable salary component.
The idea of starting with jointly developed team goals was immediately positively
received. The only framework conditions were that processes and training material
had to be created and three projects had to be specifically supported. As a
representative, the supervisor represented the department's interests, the team
formulated the topics in a 2-hour workshop, defined criteria for fulfillment and set
the priorities together with the supervisor. What was observed was not only the
sense of proportion as to the priorities,
A tree is very suitable as a moderation tool for this, in which the main branches
specify the focus of the business, but the details and the manner are determined
by the team, including the priorities.
In order to guarantee implementation, the individual topics are integrated into the
normal project backlog after an effort estimate and developed over the 2-3 week
sprints. This creates a high level of transparency regarding the goals for both the
team and the stakeholders. There is also the possibility that obsolete goals remain
in the backlog or are deleted completely. The result was, in addition to
identification with the goals, also a goal achievement of over 80 percent and the
awareness that we had worked on the right and important things and not the
uniquely defined but obsolete goals.
Ultimately, there is nothing wrong with setting goals. “Goals are an anchor for the
further development of organizations and individuals” (Gloger & Häusling, 2011, p.
109). Individual goals agreed between the disciplinary manager and the employee
should be limited to training and development goals. The task of HR is to sensitize
and advise managers on the needs of agile teams when setting goals based on the
knowledge they have acquired. This role can ideally be taken on by HR business
partners and should also be part of management training. In most cases, the
existing system of goal setting can also be transferred to agile teams if the focus is
on team goals.
Shifting control logic in agile companies

A central, but often little-noticed, element of performance management is the
internal control logic. As already written, this topic was not addressed during the
interviews. Since it can be assumed that only a few HR managers have actively
dealt with this so far, the topic will be dealt with at the end of the
recommendations for action in the area of performance management and the
transition to the area of HC marketing.
The previously described and widely used MbO system can clearly be assigned to
the area of results management, at least when it is practiced by people as Drucker
originally described. However, there are other forms of internal control.
Understanding these correctly and applying them specifically in the individual
areas of the company can have an impact on the company's overall performance
that should not be underestimated. In this context, the question arises as to the
associated benefits for the organization or, to put it another way: What changes if
HR managers understand the connections better?
In other words: Can a better understanding of the topic enable more sensible use
of performance management tools and thus an optimized form of performance
management for agile teams?
To answer this question, William Ouchi's very good, but little known, classification
of internal control logics should be used (Ouchi, 1979), with the focus on the logics
relevant to agile teams. Ouchi “... distinguishes between three fundamentally
different control logics, which certainly occur in combination, but each have
different requirements in the organizational situation variables (Meyer-Ferreira,
2015, p. 150). This is linked to the statement that the logics only work meaningfully
if they are applied in the right environment. Table 17 shows the three logics for
internal control defined by Ouchi in combination with the necessary organizational
situation variables.
Process control
Process control, often equated with bureaucracy, is usually used in corporate areas
where processes and rules control the workflow. An important prerequisite for this
is that the knowledge for creating the rules and processes is localized to
management and that the processes are fully understood by them. An area in
which this
Logic often used is that of manufacturing physical products. The advantage is that
in addition to complying with regulatory requirements (if it involves the production
of medication, for example), less qualified employees can also be used for
production. In environments with frequently and quickly changing production
lines, it may make sense to use other logic. Management must always ensure that
the rules are adhered to and that the processes are optimal. Otherwise there will
be high additional costs. Nowadays, processes are generally highly standardized,
controlled and monitored using software-supported and controlled testing
procedures. With this logic there is no claim that individual results can be assigned.
In this case, the risk of damage in the event of wrong decisions or mistakes is
above average. If the risk of damage is comparatively lower, the second control
logic described can be used.
Results management
This result management is very well known, among other things, through the MbO system developed by Drucker and already
described, in which management is controlled via goals and not via rules. The advantage over process control is that
significantly less monitoring and the associated regulations are required. In theory, one could also say that the employee's
skills are used more here with the aim of achieving greater efficiency. However, some prerequisites must also be met with this
logic in order for it to be usefully applicable in a company area. In addition to a deeper risk of damage associated with wrong
decisions, the specific specialist knowledge should also be located among the individual employees and not the management.
One feature, which certainly applies to most development departments due to increasing complexity and technological
development. Another important criterion is “...that the results can be assigned and assessed” (Meyer-Ferreira, 2015, p. 152).
This means that results can clearly be traced back to the employee's actions and must not be caused by other accidental
circumstances. It is obvious that there is already a contradiction to the application of results management for knowledge
workers in complex systems. In this case it is more appropriate to use the third logic for control. that the results can be
assigned and assessed” (Meyer-Ferreira, 2015, p. 152). This means that results can clearly be traced back to the employee's
actions and must not be caused by other accidental circumstances. It is obvious that there is already a contradiction to the
application of results management for knowledge workers in complex systems. In this case it is more appropriate to use the
third logic for control. that the results can be assigned and assessed” (Meyer-Ferreira, 2015, p. 152). This means that results can
clearly be traced back to the employee's actions and must not be caused by other accidental circumstances. It is obvious that
there is already a contradiction to the application of results management for knowledge workers in complex systems. In this
case it is more appropriate to use the third logic for control. is obvious. In this case it is more appropriate to use the third logic
for control. is obvious. In this case it is more appropriate to use the third logic for control.
Self-vote
The last logic described, the so-called self-coordination, is based on the employees
“...coordinating their actions with each other and ensuring that all existing
knowledge of those involved is incorporated into the coordination” (Meyer-
Ferreira, 2015, p. 153). This logic is often the method of choice, particularly in
individual areas of research and development, as the following criteria are usually
met. a). The knowledge required to solve specific questions is partly missing or still
needs to be developed and b). the risk associated with wrong decisions is low.
In the spirit of Ouchi, however, the values internalized by individuals and their
knowledge also play an important role in the efficient design of collaboration in
this form. The control of the teams is mainly carried out by the teams themselves
and less by the management, but in reality this is only the case in the rarest of
cases. Even in areas such as pharmaceutical research, this type of work only takes
place in individual, very early and exploratory development phases. A very
important condition for functioning is a high degree of identification with the
company and its goals. For this reason, choosing the right employees, with the
right values, is crucial for these areas of the company and places very high
demands on everyone involved in the process (cf.
Control logic
Organizational
Situational variables procedural Result- Himself-
steering steering poll
Risk of damage At high risk. With lower risk. With lower risk.
Bad decisions
Location of the At the rule-setting At the Distributed or

knowledge Management. Executors. incomplete;
must at best
still generated
become.
assessment and Not relevant. Must be present Not relevant.

Assignability of the be.
Results
Examples Manufacturing of profit center with development

mass-produced products internal performance departments;
(e.g. billing; Scrum teams.
medication). sales
departments.
Table 17: Internal control logic according to (Meyer-Ferreira, 2015, p. 151) shortened and supplemented
with examples.
Where and how can HR provide substantial support to agile teams in this context?
The procedure here does not differ too much from the method described in
Section 4.1. Here too, the first step is to actively engage with the topic, anticipating
that the way agile teams work and the roles are already understood. This can be
done in a workshop together with management representatives. It is very
important to take into account the fact that the logics often appear in mixed form
in the parts of the company and the control mix must be individually coordinated.
A very quick but not surprising finding (based on the criteria in Table 17) could be
that the result management underlying the classic MbO system is not very useful
for agile teams. The main reason is that the results are difficult to assign to
individual people. Ultimately, whether team goals should be worked with (as
described above) must be decided in the individual company context. The meaning
and function of goals should in no way be called into question, but the control with
goals itself should be questioned for this group of employees.
Likewise, process control for agile teams will potentially meet with resistance. Let
us remember the postulate in the agile manifesto “Individuals and interactions
more than processes and tools” (see Figure 4), which was adopted one-to-one in
the agile manifesto for HR (see Section 9.2). Agile methods emerged, among other
things, as a counter-movement to bureaucracy, which should not be forgotten.
Another insight should be that agile teams are more likely to meet the criteria of
the self-coordination logic (as do many in the area of research and development),
even if parts of the daily work processes (see Figure 5) are strongly process-
controlled. This not only involves requirements for the type of leadership, but also
for the organizational framework that these teams need. In its role as a partner for
the business, HR can advise those responsible that self-organization in particular
requires a lot of special leadership. The recommendations in the area of
recruiting described in the following section must therefore also be reflected
against the background of the requirements for managers in self-coordinated
company areas. Internal leadership training should also address this topic. Anyone
who thinks that self-coordinated teams lead themselves is completely wrong. It is
not enough to just establish Scrum technically; the specific leadership role in self-
coordinated teams must always be taken into account.
This is predominantly represented by the Scrum Master, who is responsible for

ensuring optimal conditions for his team (facilitator, empowerer). In addition, in his
secondary leadership role, he must also be able to act as a coach and mediator in
conflict situations. The question posed at the beginning can therefore be answered
as follows.
HR managers can therefore create added value for the company by:
vFamiliarity with the control logic existing in the company

make;
vthe personnel instruments in the area of performance management are adequate

align with it;
v advise management on selecting the best control mix;
v Develop awareness of the requirements of self-coordinated teams;
v Adapt leadership training to needs and take into account the specifics of
leadership roles within the three control logics.
The last section deals with special features that should be taken into account when
recruiting new employees in agile structures.
Recruiting employees for agile teams

The goal of recruiting for an agile environment should be to bring a new type of
employee into the organization. Namely the one who has the necessary agile
mindset and the values for expanding the corresponding teams. The aim is not
to recruit the best person available on the job market, but rather to recruit the
person best suited to the current issue and team environment. It must be clear to
everyone involved that with every recruitment, additional building blocks are
gained for the face of the organization. It makes no difference whether a Scrum
Master or an employee should be recruited for a team.
Working on probationbeforethe attitude
For agile teams, it is particularly important that the new employee fits into the
team in the best possible way and that their character traits and/or Soft skills bring
an agile mindset. Michael James sums it up like this:
“HR departments and hiring managers usually overemphasize credentials and skills,
giving insufficient weight to the chemistry of the team” (James, 2010, p. 91).
Another weak point in many recruiting processes is the relatively short time that
the applicant is with the future team during the application phase. Even if the team
is given the opportunity to interview the candidate together for an hour or two,
this is usually not enough to provide an assessment of adaptability, transparency,
honesty and willingness to share knowledge. It is also difficult to make a sufficient
assessment of feedback capability.
“Rather than conducting a conventional job interview, let the candidate solve
complex problems with the team for at least a day” (James, 2010, p. 91). This allows
the team to get a much better impression of compatibility and professional
qualifications. Even if this looks like an expensive extra round at first glance, the
costs quickly add up if the administrative effort of the recruitment and onboarding
process can be saved in the event of a bad appointment. Incorrect appointments
also result in opportunity costs and costs for a new round of recruitment, which
must also be taken into account in the cost accounting.
What role does HR have to take on here? It would certainly be negligent to give
sole responsibility for the process to the future supervisor and the team. Rather, it
makes sense for HR to work together with the team, starting with the job
advertisement, deciding which channels to use to initiate the search (job portal,
networks), and ending with the setting of the discussions. New applications can be
discussed regularly with stakeholders in 10-minute stand-up meetings and the
status of the recruitment can be made visible to everyone on a visual management
board. In any case, data protection requirements must be observed, which HR
managers should pay particular attention to. The trend to shift responsibility for
the recruiting process more to the line, was confirmed by a company. The majority
of HR sees itself in the role of talent scout and responsible for filling the talent
pipeline. This trend was also confirmed in personal conversations with managers
of a large Swiss pharmaceutical company in Basel.
Right of veto by the team – No hiring in the event of a veto

Brandes et al. even go one step further and suggest giving every employee
involved in the selection process the right of veto and transferring decision-making
authority to them. This is with the intention of am
Those involved in the hiring process “…[to transfer] responsibility for new hires…
and thus facilitate the integration of new colleagues…” (Brandes, Gemmer,
Koschek, & Schültken, 2014, p. 182). They see further advantages in the fact that
wrong decisions are reduced and fluctuation falls.
There is a big hurdle with this method: managers are reluctant to

oftengiveinup that
control
this,
over the decision and prefer a weaker form using point rankings or individual
surveys, which is already de facto practiced in many companies today and
therefore does not represent any change. Brandes et al. do not make a clear
statement as to whether the manager also has a veto right, which must definitely
be taken into account when designing the process. If a company decides to take
this path in agile parts of the company, it is advisable to work out the process
together with HR as a moderator or mediator and the line. The fact that the team
has the right to veto is a real issue,
Competency profiles and talent pipeline
A special benefit, too regarding one Shortening the

Recruitment time, can already have existing competency profiles for the various
roles in an agile team. In addition, these requirements must be known to those
responsible for HR. In the exampleScrumThese would be profiles for the Scrum
Master, Product Owner and the team members. And since every organization is
individually different, it makes sense to complete the requirements with the team
before the selection begins. If the company doesn't know what and who it is
looking for, it won't find the right employees.
Another building block is a well-maintained talent pipeline. This quickly pays off,
especially in agile working environments where the need for additional employees
often has to be resolved very quickly. Here it is particularly the opportunity costs
that have a negative impact when recruiting times are long. HR is responsible for
filling this pipeline, be it from within its own organization, as one of the companies
surveyed explicitly and actively implements, or via various networks. Many
companies also actively use employees' professional networks, with some
successful placements even rewarding them financially.
outlook 87
Continuous improvement also applies to the recruiting process

A final recommendation for action relates to the area of applicant management.
In addition to continuously improving the process discussed above, it makes sense
to evaluate the feedback from applicants who would have been made an offer but
who declined on their own initiative. To do this, it is necessary to ask the
candidates' motivations, evaluate them and, if necessary, optimize the process. An
example of this could be complicated or confusing input masks for online
applications or a mandatory registration requirement that can be perceived as
unnecessary.
5. Outlook
The following section will focus on the discussion of the third working hypothesis,
which has hardly been discussed so far. In short, this postulates that corporate
culture has a significant influence on the degree of agility. This should be discussed
in the context of agility at the company level and the culture required for it.
The role of HR should be discussed in terms of the possibilities to influence it.
Influence of corporate culture on agility

After introducing agility and thatManagement Framework Scrum have been
described, the question arises as to how the typically agile company can be
characterized and described? The answer to this could be that the prototype of an
agile company does not exist at all! However, there are characteristics and cultural
aspects that make a company or organization more agile than others.
In this context, it is helpful to remember the working methods and organization of

a Scrum Team one last time. Important characteristics here are interdisciplinarity, a
high level of personal responsibility, permanent feedback, continuous
improvement and a high degree of decentralized decision-making authority.
Responsibility typically moves upwards in such work environments and decisions
are made at all levels of the company and not just at the top management level.
Culturally, this means that there is trust in the performance and responsible
assumption of tasks of employees and also the associated image of humanity.
outlook 88
When viewed critically, these are not really new, success-critical components, which
should be made clear using two examples. On the one hand, this is the one in the
TPS andScrumimmanently anchored Deming cycle (see Figure 10). On the other
hand, Jeffrey Pfeffer's findings regarding the elements that lead to above-average
and long-term corporate success such as decentralization of decision-making
power, small status differences and low relationship barriers (Pfeffer, 1997), to
name just a few.
What all characteristics have in common is that they make it easier for companies
to react appropriately and promptly to changes in the environment. Despite the
fact that significant changes in the markets usually do not occur overnight and are
therefore predictable, some organizations are more successful than others in
recognizing changes and quickly adapting their strategies or even business
models. Some of them even act proactively as initiators and drivers of such things.
disruptive changes, often due to their great innovation potential. Companies
therefore behave either reactively to changes or proactively in order to anticipate
or even initiate potentially upcoming changes.
Agility in an organizational context
Jim Scully posits in an article: “Thus, agile has come to mean the opposite of
bureaucratic” (Scully, 2012). However, a healthy level of bureaucracy and
procedural control makes sense and is necessary for reasons of compliance in
regulated environments and to ensure efficiency.
author definition Meaning
(Scully, 2012) Variety of flexible and nimble Opposite of bureaucracy.

management approaches.
Thus, agile has come to
mean the opposite of
bureaucratic.
(Kasch, 2013) Agile companies make Speed.
decisions faster than their
competitors.
(Hausling, Rutz, Radical customer orientation Customer focus internally and
Oimann, & Oebbek e, in combination with a radical externally.
2014) Employee orientation.
Table 18: Overview of various definitions of agility in an organizational context.
Anderson and Uhlig go one step further in their book “The Agile Company” and
postulate that every company is agile as long as it exists and
outlook 89
is adaptable enough to survive (Anderson & Uhlig, 2015). Agility is defined here as
being adaptable and changeable. In addition, with the organization's ability to
"...anticipate relevant changes in its environment and respond to them quickly and
effectively" (Anderson & Uhlig, 2015, p. 262) or even initiate them. Viewed in this
way, parallels can certainly be drawn here with the basic principles of the theory of
evolution, in which the life forms that best manage to adapt to changing
environmental conditions are successful and survive.
Other authors argue that companies that “make decisions faster than their
competitors” (Kasch, 2013) are agile. Faster used here in the sense of: Faster than
the competitor. Or organizations that have understood “...that a radical customer
orientation must go hand in hand with a radical employee orientation...” (Häusling,
Rutz, Oimann, & Oebbeke, 2014). Agile companies not only focus on the customer
and their needs, but also align the organization dynamically and promptly. In
extreme cases, this leads to a classic organizational pyramid being turned upside
down (see Figure 11), whereby management only creates the framework for self-
directed employees and the focus is on the customer. While in classical,
customer
management
Squad.&.
employees
squad
management
employees
Figure 11: Agility flips the organizational pyramid. Modified according to (Häusling, Rutz,
Oimann, & Oebbeke, 2014, p. 20).
Customers are not only the external customers, whose purchasing behavior ultimately
determines the success of the company, but also the numerous internal customers.
outlook 90
The characteristics of an agile organization can therefore be summarized as

follows:
v Short, quick decision-making processes;
v decentralized decision making;
v Radical employee orientation;
v Extreme customer orientation.
Culture plays a key role in determining success

There are numerous cultural factors such as rigid hierarchies, long top-down
decision-making processes and the often described silo structures, which have a
negative impact on a company's ability to adapt and generally prevent agility.
Many of these factors are often reflected in the company culture and its values.
Alan Holub sums it up in his blog: “Agile is a culture, not a set of practices. It is
upper management’s job to establish that culture, and then let it work” (Holub,
2014). With this he makes two clear statements. On the one hand, that agility is
part of the culture and that company management must set the appropriate
course for this. On the other hand, change is often the result of practicing and
modeling new methods, which result in a change in behavior and culture over
time. An agile culture follows the guiding values of transparency, self-organization
and feedback.
Agility will only emerge if an organization manages to anchor this in its culture and
values. In this context, it is also highly doubtful whether it is expedient to establish
agility in the company via external consultants without having the necessary
cultural “breeding ground” in the company. Which also means that it is not
absolutely necessaryScrum or to implement other agile methods slavishly and
puristically according to the textbook. The focus here must be on the “best
individual fit” with the people in the company. Agile companies characterize
themselves visibly from the outside, among other things, through the following
aspect:
v Constant investment in further training
v Employee Suggestions
v Employee-oriented leadership
v Values such as transparency and trust in employees

outlook 91
It is obvious that this is an interaction between numerous disciplines. The HR

department should be expected to take on the role of a catalyst within the change
process. On the one hand, it must support communication between the different
levels of the company, but also promote any adjustments to human resources
processes. This once again makes it clear how important it is that there is in-depth
knowledge and awareness of agility within the HR department, otherwise
professional support is impossible.
From a scientific point of view, however, the comparison with a catalyst is not
flawless, since a catalyst by definition enables and accelerates a reaction, but does
not change in the process. Which raises the question of to what extent HR should
or even has to change itself in order to provide the best possible benefit for the
organization?
Agile transformation of the HR department
“Being agile is cool and creates a bridge to business. Why not just introduce a
stand-up meeting in the HR department?” writes Reiner Straub, editor of HR
magazine, in the editorial of the November 2014 issue.
Unfortunately, it's not that easy. Many companies fail precisely because they
introduce agile methods “just on the side” without being clear about the
organizational and cultural requirements that are essential for this. However, if the
“bridge to business” means that HR actively questions the current HR processes
together with those responsible for the business and iteratively develops, tests and
implements new processes with them, then the direction is correct. It is important
that the bridges are strong enough to support the rest of the organization. As a
rule, it is only individual areas of an organization that adapt agile working
methods. Highly individualized and diversified processes cannot and must not be
the goal. Because these will not find acceptance.
HR doesn't necessarily have to do this in order to do thisScrumor adapt other agile

methods yourself, as many activities are routine, especially in the area of HR
services. Transformation must be understood in the sense that awareness of
changes in the organization being supported is raised and the associated needs
can be responded to appropriately. However, HR projects, which may include
recruiting, should be considered agile
outlook 92
to not only focus more on the customer, but also to actively involve them.
Against this background, HR must define its role within the organization itself and
decide with which means it wants to support an agile culture in order to actively
participate in shaping it. In addition to the HR processes already discussed, there
are other levers for this.
One of the greatest levers is certainly in building a talent pipeline that can meet the
need for skilled workers that often arise very spontaneously in agile organizations
in a timely manner. Active costs are reduced through unused opportunities. It is
important that employees are hired who, in addition to the technical skills, also
have the mindset necessary for agile teams. HR's job here is to manage
expectations during the application process and support the teams. Ideally,
potential candidates have already been identified within the company or can be
reached quickly via existing networks. At this point, HR can play a decisive role in
ensuring that employees and managers who represent and live agile values come
into the company.
Eyholzer represents the opinion of “Engagement over Retention” (Eyholzer, 2015).

Even if this postulate may sound strange and anti-employee at first glance, the
messages behind it are not unreasonable. It makes little sense to invest in
retention programs, which ultimately only prolong the internal termination, reduce
team performance and cause immense costs. Rather, it makes sense to support a
culture that offers employees a motivating environment in which they are willing to
invest their human capital. The manifesto postulated by Eyholzer, including the ten
principles for agile HR (see Section 9.2), must certainly also be seen in the context
of your consulting work. Even if there are some criticisms of HR, which she
interestingly postulates from the perspective of an (agile) team (see Section 9.3),
are sometimes exaggerated, she strongly believes that HR has to play a decisive
role in a transformation process. HR can actively support this through a
governance role supported by management and involvement in the training and
development of managers.
This also includes supporting a continually “learning organization”. HR can make an

active contribution by establishing modern tools and adding “We-Learnings” to the
offering. E-learning tools are of little use, especially in the soft skill area, where the
right behavior is important.
Final word 93
Simulations, such as those often used in project management training, which are
then worked on in a team, are much more effective here. In addition, collaborative
learning in teams promotes the exchange of knowledge between employees and
departments. The positive side effect is that employees from different areas work
together to develop solutions who have often never cooperated before, which can
help break down silos.
In the area of infrastructure, awareness of the need to create open, transparent

work environments must be created among managers. Even if this is not directly
within HR's sphere of influence, at least the awareness-raising measures and
advice from line are to the effect that agile teams are dependent on such spaces.
Finally, the contribution of HR in the context of change management should be

mentioned. The focus must be on supporting the affected parts of the organization
in the transition from position to role and the fears and doubts that often arise
among employees. In this context, the advantage of teamwork and the associated
assessment of team performance versus individual performance by managers and
HR must be made clear to employees.
6. Conclusion
It's actually hard to believe that many managers talk about agility and discuss the
topic at workshops and conferences, but the organizations are little or not at all
willing to change. The topic is not completely unknown in HR either, but here too
the next step must be taken and the personnel processes must be questioned and
one's own role in an agile organization must be defined.
The reluctance could be understood if the topic of agility were a short-term trend
or fashion. However, since a good three quarters of software developers now work
in an agile manner, this reluctance can certainly be questioned. Especially in the
context that in the future software development will be given an even greater
importance within product development than it already is today.
But one thing is certain: standing still and staying put until this wave is over will not
pay off. Even sectors with high entry barriers for new competitors, such as
automobile manufacturing (e.g. Tesla, Google) and medical technology, are
increasingly facing competition from Asia and India. Who
Final word 94
If you don't think you have to react here today, you will most likely have a
significantly worse market position in the future.
What is also certain is that the next wave is already on the horizon with
“Holocracy”. This will also catch many companies unprepared. Here too, the focus
is on clarity, transparency, lean decision-making processes and a redistribution of
authority.
With all changes, it must not be forgotten that culture is the memory of the
organization and that culture always follows. One could even go so far as to say
that the culture that is so important for the successful implementation of agile
methods is the opposite of agile, i.e. dynamic, as it always follows with some delay.
At this point one could also take an extreme position and claim that HR in such
environments must use the opportunity to avoid being completely degraded to a
service organization, whose services will then be provided in the future through
outsourcing to low-wage countries or online through portal service providers. It
seems more sensible to take the position that exactly this transition of an
organization will not be successful at all without strategically thinking and
innovative HR. HR is part of the organization and when it changes, HR is also
affected. Those affected should be turned into participants so that they can make
the necessary realignments together with the organization being supported.
Every HR department must decide for itself which levers it would like to use to
optimally support organizations that are in constant change and align their
strategy accordingly. Intensive preoccupation with oneself cannot and must not be
the solution. Rather, HR should actively shape the future of the company, following
the principle of agility. The added value must be noticeable and measurable by the
rest of the organization. In order to generate maximum benefit for the company,
one goal must always be to promote cooperation. This involves the active design of
framework conditions and therefore a task that must be addressed and
implemented by the organization's management.
The agile transformation that is currently being felt in many industries and
companies offers a good opportunity to question existing processes and control
logic together with stakeholders and adapt them to current needs and thus make a
contribution to securing existence.

Supporting Organization Agility HR 8 94 ENG

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supporting Organization Agility HR 8 94 ENG

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Translated from German to English - www.onlinedoctranslator.

Table of contents VIII

Declaration of truth.................................................. ................................................ II

Foreword ................................................ ................................................ ..................IV

Management summary ................................................ .......................................... VI

Table of contents ................................................. ................................................ VIII

List of illustrations ................................................ ........................................... X

List of tables ................................................ ................................................ XI

Abbreviations................................................. ................................................ ........XII

1 Introduction............................................... ................................................ ..........13

Clarification of the question .......................................................... ...................................15

Structuring and methodology ................................................ .............................16

Target group and benefits ................................................ ...................................17

2. Agility in the context of corporate development......................................18

Introduction to the terms Lean, Scrum Framework and Agile Manifesto........18

Requirements of agile teams on the organization ...........................................27

Areas of tension in the area of performance management ..........................................29

Competence Management ................................................ ...................................34

HC Marketing................................................. ................................................ .........36

Segmentation of companies for interviews .......................................... 37

3. Presentation of the qualitative survey results ..........................................37

Understanding agility................................................... ...................................38

Performance Management................................................ ................................39

Employee appraisals and performance appraisals................................................... ....39

Objective ................................................ ................................................ ..........42

Feedback ................................................ ................................................ .............44

Competence Management ................................................ ................................45

Career paths ................................................ ................................................ .......46

HC Marketing area ................................................ ..........................................47

Recruitment ................................................ ................................................ ........47

Evaluation and discussion of the interview results................................................48

Understanding of agility ................................................ ................................................49

Performance management ................................................ ...................................51

Competence Management ................................................ ...................................58

HC Marketing................................................. ................................................ .........59

4. Derivation of recommendations for action................................................. ...........61

Understanding agility and agile working in order to optimally support it............62

Employee appraisals for agile teams................................................... ................69

Goal setting in an agile environment .......................................... .............................77

Shifting control logic in agile companies ..........................80

Recruiting employees for agile teams ..........................................84

5. Outlook ................................................ ................................................ ............87

Influence of corporate culture on agility .......................................... ......87

Agile transformation of the HR department................................................ ..................91

6. Final word................................................... ................................................ ......93

7. References .......................................... ................................................95

8. Appendix I................................................ ................................................ .............98

Cover letter for companies ................................................ ..........................................98

Interview Guide ................................................ ..........................................99

9. Appendix II................................................ ................................................ ..........100

Agile Manifesto - Twelve Principles of Agile Software Development (Seventeen

List of keywords for topic-specific internet research................102

Further research topics in keywords ..........................................102

Figure 2: Waterfall model of sequential development. ...................................21

Figure 4: Agile Manifesto (Seventeen initial signatories, 2001). .............................23

Figure 5: Overview of Scrum modified according to Mountain Goat Software. ....................25

Figure 6: Strategic areas of action for human capital management added

Figure 7: Scrum Team Roles; a) simple representation; b) constellation with

Figure 8: HR model by Dave Ulrich supplemented by tasks and those responsible

Figure 9: Revision/adjustment of the MAG process. ...................................71

Figure 10: Deming circle. ................................................ ..........................................73

Table 2: Collection of performance management questions – employee appraisals area

Table 3: Collection of performance management questions – area of target agreement. ..33

Table 4: Collection of Performance Management questions – Feedback area. .............34