AGILE
Sprinting In Circles
Sprinting In Circles
Sprinting In Circles
Scrum, Cycles, and the Cost of Mistaking Improvement for Innovation
Scrum, Cycles, and the Cost of Mistaking Improvement for Innovation
Download the article
In today’s organizations, the word transformation gets thrown around a lot. But too often, what’s labeled as “transformation” is actually a series of structured improvements.
In today’s organizations, the word transformation gets thrown around a lot. But too often, what’s labeled as “transformation” is actually a series of structured improvements.
Agile teams sprint toward features. Leaders track KPIs. Everyone stays busy. …But beneath the surface, nothing truly shifts. Sound familiar? If you’ve ever led a high-stakes initiative only to feel stuck in old patterns — this piece is for you.
Agile teams sprint toward features. Leaders track KPIs. Everyone stays busy. …But beneath the surface, nothing truly shifts. Sound familiar? If you’ve ever led a high-stakes initiative only to feel stuck in old patterns — this piece is for you.
Force Of Disruption
Transformation is not a faster version of what came before. Transformation is disruptive — a cycle that dissolves old patterns to birth something new.
But in many organizations, what we call transformation is really just improvement wearing a shiny new name. We apply linear tools like Scrum, designed for refining and scaling what already works, to early-stage efforts full of uncertainty, contradiction, and intuition.
The result? Teams move in circles, but never actually evolve. They’re sprinting, releasing, iterating — but stuck inside a loop that was never meant to stretch into the unknown.
Transformation is not a faster version of what came before. Transformation is disruptive — a cycle that dissolves old patterns to birth something new.
But in many organizations, what we call transformation is really just improvement wearing a shiny new name. We apply linear tools like Scrum, designed for refining and scaling what already works, to early-stage efforts full of uncertainty, contradiction, and intuition.
The result? Teams move in circles, but never actually evolve. They’re sprinting, releasing, iterating — but stuck inside a loop that was never meant to stretch into the unknown.
IMPROVEMENT VS. TRANSFORMATION
Most operating models (Scrum, Traditional Agile, Waterfall) are built for efficiency — not emergence.
They work beautifully when the path is clear, the goals are stable, and the systems already make sense. But when you're facing ambiguity, disruption, or a complete overhaul? You need something else entirely.
Improvement | Transformation | |
|---|---|---|
Mindset | Iterative change to an existing process | Bold reimagining of what's possible |
Workflow | Linear, predictable, milestone-driven | Non-linear, cyclical, discovery-led |
Metrics | Faster delivery or enhanced performance | Breakthrough results, deeper insight, long-term change |
Customer | Vendor relationship, feedback-giver | Co-creator, trusted partner |
👉 Improvement makes what exists better.
👉 Transformation makes something new possible.
Most operating models (Scrum, Traditional Agile, Waterfall) are built for efficiency — not emergence.
They work beautifully when the path is clear, the goals are stable, and the systems already make sense. But when you're facing ambiguity, disruption, or a complete overhaul? You need something else entirely.
Improvement | Transformation | |
|---|---|---|
Mindset | Iterative change to an existing process | Bold reimagining of what's possible |
Workflow | Linear, predictable, milestone-driven | Non-linear, cyclical, discovery-led |
Metrics | Faster delivery or enhanced performance | Breakthrough results, deeper insight, long-term change |
Customer | Vendor relationship, feedback-giver | Co-creator, trusted partner |
👉 Improvement makes what exists better.
👉 Transformation makes something new possible.
Why Teams Get Stuck
The moment a team is asked to do something fundamentally new — but is held to the tools, expectations, and rhythms of improvement — tension builds.
They sprint without discovery. They report progress, not learning. They optimize what they should be questioning. This leaves teams feeling unclear, overextended, and out of sync, not because they’re inefficient, but because they’re being asked to use a wrench when the job requires a telescope.
The Research Supports This
A 2021 study found that teams regularly adapt, abandon, or misuse Scrum in high-uncertainty projects — not out of failure, but because the methodology doesn’t account for learning- and insight-driven work (arXiv.org).
Scrum and traditional Agile methods struggle in environments with evolving requirements and unclear goals, especially in innovation work. In fact, Scrum often underperforms when ambiguity is high and stakeholder alignment is loose (Research Leap).
This aligns with what I saw in one of my most transformative teams: They were being pushed to "deliver faster" — but what they really needed was permission to slow down, ask better questions, and find the value hidden beneath the noise.
The moment a team is asked to do something fundamentally new — but is held to the tools, expectations, and rhythms of improvement — tension builds.
They sprint without discovery. They report progress, not learning. They optimize what they should be questioning. This leaves teams feeling unclear, overextended, and out of sync, not because they’re inefficient, but because they’re being asked to use a wrench when the job requires a telescope.
The Research Supports This
A 2021 study found that teams regularly adapt, abandon, or misuse Scrum in high-uncertainty projects — not out of failure, but because the methodology doesn’t account for learning- and insight-driven work (arXiv.org).
Scrum and traditional Agile methods struggle in environments with evolving requirements and unclear goals, especially in innovation work. In fact, Scrum often underperforms when ambiguity is high and stakeholder alignment is loose (Research Leap).
This aligns with what I saw in one of my most transformative teams: They were being pushed to "deliver faster" — but what they really needed was permission to slow down, ask better questions, and find the value hidden beneath the noise.
A New Approach
A New Approach
I created the Generative Innovation Cycle because no existing framework reflected the kind of work my clients were doing.
They weren’t just adding features — they were reinventing how work gets done.
They weren’t just solving problems — they were uncovering what the real problems even were.
They needed a map that mirrored their reality — one that made space for learning, for tension, for revelation, and for change. So I stopped trying to adapt transformational work into an improvement-shaped container. I created a new approach instead, one that’s aligned to how real breakthroughs actually happen.
The Shift That Changes Everything
When teams embrace transformation as a living, evolving process, everything shifts:
- They stop seeing change as failure — and start seeing it as progress
- They stop trying to prove expertise — and start leading with curiosity
- They stop managing stakeholders — and start co-creating with them
And research backs it up: Teams with adaptive, insight-driven approaches show significantly better performance than those locked into rigid frameworks. In fact, effective stakeholder participation boosts project success by up to 78% (Zoe Talent Solutions).
Because transformation isn’t a sprint. It’s a series of cycles: reflection, revelation, decision, evolution. And when teams learn to navigate those cycles with clarity and trust, that’s when the real momentum begins.
I created the Generative Innovation Cycle because no existing framework reflected the kind of work my clients were doing.
They weren’t just adding features — they were reinventing how work gets done.
They weren’t just solving problems — they were uncovering what the real problems even were.
They needed a map that mirrored their reality — one that made space for learning, for tension, for revelation, and for change. So I stopped trying to adapt transformational work into an improvement-shaped container. I created a new approach instead, one that’s aligned to how real breakthroughs actually happen.
The Shift That Changes Everything
When teams embrace transformation as a living, evolving process, everything shifts:
- They stop seeing change as failure — and start seeing it as progress
- They stop trying to prove expertise — and start leading with curiosity
- They stop managing stakeholders — and start co-creating with them
And research backs it up: Teams with adaptive, insight-driven approaches show significantly better performance than those locked into rigid frameworks. In fact, effective stakeholder participation boosts project success by up to 78% (Zoe Talent Solutions).
Because transformation isn’t a sprint. It’s a series of cycles: reflection, revelation, decision, evolution. And when teams learn to navigate those cycles with clarity and trust, that’s when the real momentum begins.
Self-Coaching Questions:
Where are you trying to deliver transformation using an improvement mindset?
What changes if you saw ambiguity as a sign of progress, not a gap in planning?
Who on your team needs to be re-invited into the conversation as a co-creator, not a gatekeeper?
Where are you trying to deliver transformation using an improvement mindset?
What changes if you saw ambiguity as a sign of progress, not a gap in planning?
Who on your team needs to be re-invited into the conversation as a co-creator, not a gatekeeper?
MORE INSIGHTS
AGILE
Sprinting In Circles
Sprinting In Circles
Sprinting In Circles
Scrum, Cycles, and the Cost of Mistaking Improvement for Innovation
Scrum, Cycles, and the Cost of Mistaking Improvement for Innovation
Download the article
In today’s organizations, the word transformation gets thrown around a lot. But too often, what’s labeled as “transformation” is actually a series of structured improvements.
In today’s organizations, the word transformation gets thrown around a lot. But too often, what’s labeled as “transformation” is actually a series of structured improvements.
Agile teams sprint toward features. Leaders track KPIs. Everyone stays busy. …But beneath the surface, nothing truly shifts. Sound familiar? If you’ve ever led a high-stakes initiative only to feel stuck in old patterns — this piece is for you.
Agile teams sprint toward features. Leaders track KPIs. Everyone stays busy. …But beneath the surface, nothing truly shifts. Sound familiar? If you’ve ever led a high-stakes initiative only to feel stuck in old patterns — this piece is for you.
Force Of Disruption
Transformation is not a faster version of what came before. Transformation is disruptive — a cycle that dissolves old patterns to birth something new.
But in many organizations, what we call transformation is really just improvement wearing a shiny new name. We apply linear tools like Scrum, designed for refining and scaling what already works, to early-stage efforts full of uncertainty, contradiction, and intuition.
The result? Teams move in circles, but never actually evolve. They’re sprinting, releasing, iterating — but stuck inside a loop that was never meant to stretch into the unknown.
Transformation is not a faster version of what came before. Transformation is disruptive — a cycle that dissolves old patterns to birth something new.
But in many organizations, what we call transformation is really just improvement wearing a shiny new name. We apply linear tools like Scrum, designed for refining and scaling what already works, to early-stage efforts full of uncertainty, contradiction, and intuition.
The result? Teams move in circles, but never actually evolve. They’re sprinting, releasing, iterating — but stuck inside a loop that was never meant to stretch into the unknown.
IMPROVEMENT VS. TRANSFORMATION
Most operating models (Scrum, Traditional Agile, Waterfall) are built for efficiency — not emergence.
They work beautifully when the path is clear, the goals are stable, and the systems already make sense. But when you're facing ambiguity, disruption, or a complete overhaul? You need something else entirely.
Improvement | Transformation | |
|---|---|---|
Mindset | Iterative change to an existing process | Bold reimagining of what's possible |
Workflow | Linear, predictable, milestone-driven | Non-linear, cyclical, discovery-led |
Metrics | Faster delivery or enhanced performance | Breakthrough results, deeper insight, long-term change |
Customer | Vendor relationship, feedback-giver | Co-creator, trusted partner |
👉 Improvement makes what exists better.
👉 Transformation makes something new possible.
Most operating models (Scrum, Traditional Agile, Waterfall) are built for efficiency — not emergence.
They work beautifully when the path is clear, the goals are stable, and the systems already make sense. But when you're facing ambiguity, disruption, or a complete overhaul? You need something else entirely.
Improvement | Transformation | |
|---|---|---|
Mindset | Iterative change to an existing process | Bold reimagining of what's possible |
Workflow | Linear, predictable, milestone-driven | Non-linear, cyclical, discovery-led |
Metrics | Faster delivery or enhanced performance | Breakthrough results, deeper insight, long-term change |
Customer | Vendor relationship, feedback-giver | Co-creator, trusted partner |
👉 Improvement makes what exists better.
👉 Transformation makes something new possible.
Why Teams Get Stuck
The moment a team is asked to do something fundamentally new — but is held to the tools, expectations, and rhythms of improvement — tension builds.
They sprint without discovery. They report progress, not learning. They optimize what they should be questioning. This leaves teams feeling unclear, overextended, and out of sync, not because they’re inefficient, but because they’re being asked to use a wrench when the job requires a telescope.
The Research Supports This
A 2021 study found that teams regularly adapt, abandon, or misuse Scrum in high-uncertainty projects — not out of failure, but because the methodology doesn’t account for learning- and insight-driven work (arXiv.org).
Scrum and traditional Agile methods struggle in environments with evolving requirements and unclear goals, especially in innovation work. In fact, Scrum often underperforms when ambiguity is high and stakeholder alignment is loose (Research Leap).
This aligns with what I saw in one of my most transformative teams: They were being pushed to "deliver faster" — but what they really needed was permission to slow down, ask better questions, and find the value hidden beneath the noise.
The moment a team is asked to do something fundamentally new — but is held to the tools, expectations, and rhythms of improvement — tension builds.
They sprint without discovery. They report progress, not learning. They optimize what they should be questioning. This leaves teams feeling unclear, overextended, and out of sync, not because they’re inefficient, but because they’re being asked to use a wrench when the job requires a telescope.
The Research Supports This
A 2021 study found that teams regularly adapt, abandon, or misuse Scrum in high-uncertainty projects — not out of failure, but because the methodology doesn’t account for learning- and insight-driven work (arXiv.org).
Scrum and traditional Agile methods struggle in environments with evolving requirements and unclear goals, especially in innovation work. In fact, Scrum often underperforms when ambiguity is high and stakeholder alignment is loose (Research Leap).
This aligns with what I saw in one of my most transformative teams: They were being pushed to "deliver faster" — but what they really needed was permission to slow down, ask better questions, and find the value hidden beneath the noise.
A New Approach
A New Approach
I created the Generative Innovation Cycle because no existing framework reflected the kind of work my clients were doing.
They weren’t just adding features — they were reinventing how work gets done.
They weren’t just solving problems — they were uncovering what the real problems even were.
They needed a map that mirrored their reality — one that made space for learning, for tension, for revelation, and for change. So I stopped trying to adapt transformational work into an improvement-shaped container. I created a new approach instead, one that’s aligned to how real breakthroughs actually happen.
The Shift That Changes Everything
When teams embrace transformation as a living, evolving process, everything shifts:
- They stop seeing change as failure — and start seeing it as progress
- They stop trying to prove expertise — and start leading with curiosity
- They stop managing stakeholders — and start co-creating with them
And research backs it up: Teams with adaptive, insight-driven approaches show significantly better performance than those locked into rigid frameworks. In fact, effective stakeholder participation boosts project success by up to 78% (Zoe Talent Solutions).
Because transformation isn’t a sprint. It’s a series of cycles: reflection, revelation, decision, evolution. And when teams learn to navigate those cycles with clarity and trust, that’s when the real momentum begins.
I created the Generative Innovation Cycle because no existing framework reflected the kind of work my clients were doing.
They weren’t just adding features — they were reinventing how work gets done.
They weren’t just solving problems — they were uncovering what the real problems even were.
They needed a map that mirrored their reality — one that made space for learning, for tension, for revelation, and for change. So I stopped trying to adapt transformational work into an improvement-shaped container. I created a new approach instead, one that’s aligned to how real breakthroughs actually happen.
The Shift That Changes Everything
When teams embrace transformation as a living, evolving process, everything shifts:
- They stop seeing change as failure — and start seeing it as progress
- They stop trying to prove expertise — and start leading with curiosity
- They stop managing stakeholders — and start co-creating with them
And research backs it up: Teams with adaptive, insight-driven approaches show significantly better performance than those locked into rigid frameworks. In fact, effective stakeholder participation boosts project success by up to 78% (Zoe Talent Solutions).
Because transformation isn’t a sprint. It’s a series of cycles: reflection, revelation, decision, evolution. And when teams learn to navigate those cycles with clarity and trust, that’s when the real momentum begins.
Self-Coaching Questions:
Where are you trying to deliver transformation using an improvement mindset?
What changes if you saw ambiguity as a sign of progress, not a gap in planning?
Who on your team needs to be re-invited into the conversation as a co-creator, not a gatekeeper?
Where are you trying to deliver transformation using an improvement mindset?
What changes if you saw ambiguity as a sign of progress, not a gap in planning?
Who on your team needs to be re-invited into the conversation as a co-creator, not a gatekeeper?
MORE INSIGHTS
AGILE
Sprinting In Circles
Sprinting In Circles
Sprinting In Circles
Scrum, Cycles, and the Cost of Mistaking Improvement for Innovation
Scrum, Cycles, and the Cost of Mistaking Improvement for Innovation
Download the article
In today’s organizations, the word transformation gets thrown around a lot. But too often, what’s labeled as “transformation” is actually a series of structured improvements.
In today’s organizations, the word transformation gets thrown around a lot. But too often, what’s labeled as “transformation” is actually a series of structured improvements.
Agile teams sprint toward features. Leaders track KPIs. Everyone stays busy. …But beneath the surface, nothing truly shifts. Sound familiar? If you’ve ever led a high-stakes initiative only to feel stuck in old patterns — this piece is for you.
Agile teams sprint toward features. Leaders track KPIs. Everyone stays busy. …But beneath the surface, nothing truly shifts. Sound familiar? If you’ve ever led a high-stakes initiative only to feel stuck in old patterns — this piece is for you.
Force Of Disruption
Transformation is not a faster version of what came before. Transformation is disruptive — a cycle that dissolves old patterns to birth something new.
But in many organizations, what we call transformation is really just improvement wearing a shiny new name. We apply linear tools like Scrum, designed for refining and scaling what already works, to early-stage efforts full of uncertainty, contradiction, and intuition.
The result? Teams move in circles, but never actually evolve. They’re sprinting, releasing, iterating — but stuck inside a loop that was never meant to stretch into the unknown.
Transformation is not a faster version of what came before. Transformation is disruptive — a cycle that dissolves old patterns to birth something new.
But in many organizations, what we call transformation is really just improvement wearing a shiny new name. We apply linear tools like Scrum, designed for refining and scaling what already works, to early-stage efforts full of uncertainty, contradiction, and intuition.
The result? Teams move in circles, but never actually evolve. They’re sprinting, releasing, iterating — but stuck inside a loop that was never meant to stretch into the unknown.
IMPROVEMENT VS. TRANSFORMATION
Most operating models (Scrum, Traditional Agile, Waterfall) are built for efficiency — not emergence.
They work beautifully when the path is clear, the goals are stable, and the systems already make sense. But when you're facing ambiguity, disruption, or a complete overhaul? You need something else entirely.
Improvement | Transformation | |
|---|---|---|
Mindset | Iterative change to an existing process | Bold reimagining of what's possible |
Workflow | Linear, predictable, milestone-driven | Non-linear, cyclical, discovery-led |
Metrics | Faster delivery or enhanced performance | Breakthrough results, deeper insight, long-term change |
Customer | Vendor relationship, feedback-giver | Co-creator, trusted partner |
👉 Improvement makes what exists better.
👉 Transformation makes something new possible.
Most operating models (Scrum, Traditional Agile, Waterfall) are built for efficiency — not emergence.
They work beautifully when the path is clear, the goals are stable, and the systems already make sense. But when you're facing ambiguity, disruption, or a complete overhaul? You need something else entirely.
Improvement | Transformation | |
|---|---|---|
Mindset | Iterative change to an existing process | Bold reimagining of what's possible |
Workflow | Linear, predictable, milestone-driven | Non-linear, cyclical, discovery-led |
Metrics | Faster delivery or enhanced performance | Breakthrough results, deeper insight, long-term change |
Customer | Vendor relationship, feedback-giver | Co-creator, trusted partner |
👉 Improvement makes what exists better.
👉 Transformation makes something new possible.
Why Teams Get Stuck
The moment a team is asked to do something fundamentally new — but is held to the tools, expectations, and rhythms of improvement — tension builds.
They sprint without discovery. They report progress, not learning. They optimize what they should be questioning. This leaves teams feeling unclear, overextended, and out of sync, not because they’re inefficient, but because they’re being asked to use a wrench when the job requires a telescope.
The Research Supports This
A 2021 study found that teams regularly adapt, abandon, or misuse Scrum in high-uncertainty projects — not out of failure, but because the methodology doesn’t account for learning- and insight-driven work (arXiv.org).
Scrum and traditional Agile methods struggle in environments with evolving requirements and unclear goals, especially in innovation work. In fact, Scrum often underperforms when ambiguity is high and stakeholder alignment is loose (Research Leap).
This aligns with what I saw in one of my most transformative teams: They were being pushed to "deliver faster" — but what they really needed was permission to slow down, ask better questions, and find the value hidden beneath the noise.
The moment a team is asked to do something fundamentally new — but is held to the tools, expectations, and rhythms of improvement — tension builds.
They sprint without discovery. They report progress, not learning. They optimize what they should be questioning. This leaves teams feeling unclear, overextended, and out of sync, not because they’re inefficient, but because they’re being asked to use a wrench when the job requires a telescope.
The Research Supports This
A 2021 study found that teams regularly adapt, abandon, or misuse Scrum in high-uncertainty projects — not out of failure, but because the methodology doesn’t account for learning- and insight-driven work (arXiv.org).
Scrum and traditional Agile methods struggle in environments with evolving requirements and unclear goals, especially in innovation work. In fact, Scrum often underperforms when ambiguity is high and stakeholder alignment is loose (Research Leap).
This aligns with what I saw in one of my most transformative teams: They were being pushed to "deliver faster" — but what they really needed was permission to slow down, ask better questions, and find the value hidden beneath the noise.
A New Approach
A New Approach
I created the Generative Innovation Cycle because no existing framework reflected the kind of work my clients were doing.
They weren’t just adding features — they were reinventing how work gets done.
They weren’t just solving problems — they were uncovering what the real problems even were.
They needed a map that mirrored their reality — one that made space for learning, for tension, for revelation, and for change. So I stopped trying to adapt transformational work into an improvement-shaped container. I created a new approach instead, one that’s aligned to how real breakthroughs actually happen.
The Shift That Changes Everything
When teams embrace transformation as a living, evolving process, everything shifts:
- They stop seeing change as failure — and start seeing it as progress
- They stop trying to prove expertise — and start leading with curiosity
- They stop managing stakeholders — and start co-creating with them
And research backs it up: Teams with adaptive, insight-driven approaches show significantly better performance than those locked into rigid frameworks. In fact, effective stakeholder participation boosts project success by up to 78% (Zoe Talent Solutions).
Because transformation isn’t a sprint. It’s a series of cycles: reflection, revelation, decision, evolution. And when teams learn to navigate those cycles with clarity and trust, that’s when the real momentum begins.
I created the Generative Innovation Cycle because no existing framework reflected the kind of work my clients were doing.
They weren’t just adding features — they were reinventing how work gets done.
They weren’t just solving problems — they were uncovering what the real problems even were.
They needed a map that mirrored their reality — one that made space for learning, for tension, for revelation, and for change. So I stopped trying to adapt transformational work into an improvement-shaped container. I created a new approach instead, one that’s aligned to how real breakthroughs actually happen.
The Shift That Changes Everything
When teams embrace transformation as a living, evolving process, everything shifts:
- They stop seeing change as failure — and start seeing it as progress
- They stop trying to prove expertise — and start leading with curiosity
- They stop managing stakeholders — and start co-creating with them
And research backs it up: Teams with adaptive, insight-driven approaches show significantly better performance than those locked into rigid frameworks. In fact, effective stakeholder participation boosts project success by up to 78% (Zoe Talent Solutions).
Because transformation isn’t a sprint. It’s a series of cycles: reflection, revelation, decision, evolution. And when teams learn to navigate those cycles with clarity and trust, that’s when the real momentum begins.
Self-Coaching Questions:
Where are you trying to deliver transformation using an improvement mindset?
What changes if you saw ambiguity as a sign of progress, not a gap in planning?
Who on your team needs to be re-invited into the conversation as a co-creator, not a gatekeeper?
Where are you trying to deliver transformation using an improvement mindset?
What changes if you saw ambiguity as a sign of progress, not a gap in planning?
Who on your team needs to be re-invited into the conversation as a co-creator, not a gatekeeper?