That’s right, versus “Commander-In-Chief”. Imagine how a head of state / company / group would act if that person was an Agilist in spirit and definition, versus a “command & control”-styled officer.


Making Decisions

She’d be driven by a vision for a better world: clearly & repeatedly stated. All things done by the group ultimately tie back to this vision. Sure, there may be a mission and a set of OKRs to translate from emotional ideals to concrete actions, but it is clear why we exist.

She’d be continuously empathetic to the users served, both internal and external. Initiatives are transparently measured, with each initiative started after a decision driven by data, data that informs progress towards the envisioned better world, that tracks how a user is being helped, or reveals a better understanding of a user.

Trying Experiments

She’d treat all initiatives as experiments, with a hypothesis to test and metrics to track. Think “Build-Measure-Learn” cycle from The Lean Start-Up. Now apply this to not just what is done (backlog), but also how things are done (frontlog).

Truly brave, she’d also apply this Kaizen notion to occasionally questioning “the why” (forelog).

Trusting People

She’d surround herself with people she can and does trust. She trusts first, modeling this behaviour as a desired aspect of all teams she serves.

She’d supply a clear intention, then allow for self-organization, preferring smaller teams, while also enabling autonomy, structuring feedback loops for what is done and how it’s all done.

She’d allow people to make mistakes.

She’d own up to any of hers.

Done imagining?

Now go be her.

What else do you see in an Agilist-In-Chief?