Anyone who has been reading the management magazines and blogs of this republic for 2-3 years has the feeling that something fundamentally new has been invented: New Work (with meaningfulness, mindfulness, Shout Out Loud), agility, self-organisation, etc. with which companies can virtually reinvent themselves, arm themselves for digitalisation and position themselves for the future. However, it is worth taking a look behind the scenes and into the history books, as these concepts have been around for a long time and are nothing new in themselves. In my view, it is a social blessing that they have finally arrived in the mainstream. Neuroscientific studies support the benefits of these approaches to work, such as the strengthening of neuronal plasticity through continuous learning and adaptability, which is essential for the new world of work. The early proponents were often ridiculed (Victor Frankl - meaning; sociocracy - self-organisation, sustainability; mindfulness as religiosity or esotericism; systemic school - holistic view) and dismissed as unrealistic, esoteric and factually unprovable. However, there are companies that have been working with these attitudes and approaches for some time, such as Gore-Tex, Systelios Klinik, etc. (see also Eye level). So: nothing new, really. Now, with the challenges posed by digitalisation and issues such as the climate crisis, etc., we are at a point where the old management concepts are no longer really effective. The danger that I see lies in the reflex with which many companies and the decision-makers I meet react: in the Ver-tool-isation of ideas. The reaction of many companies: a flood of tools. There are companies in which everything MUST now be agile. Or in which Scrum and stand-ups are simply introduced so that the "agile" requirement from management can be ticked off as done. Or start-ups in which "Glassfrog" (the holocracy tool) is introduced in the hope that this will make them self-organised. This is all well and good, but it has nothing to do with "real" agility as an attitude/mindset. This approach is neither dynamic nor lively, but rigid and dogmatic in its own way. Because agility is not a question of the toolbox. It is a mindset. The mere implementation of Scrum or Glassfrog does not make a company agile or self-organised. This is the old, linear-mechanical management mindset: 1) I have a problem, 2) then I use a tool and 3) introduce it into the organisation and 4) then everything is fine again. These companies and start-ups will wonder (and have always wondered) why they haven't really made any progress a year later. They run the risk of lagging behind in the long term and moving further and further away from truly agile, dynamic and vibrant companies and organisations. Because those who think and act in a truly agile way - regardless of methods and tools - leave it up to those responsible to decide whether processes should be agile or not, whether self-organisation is appropriate or not and for which parts of the organisation. What is done is what makes sense and is coherent for the individual company and its sub-areas. Recognising what is meaningful and coherent and having the courage to implement it is the real art that makes the difference for sustainable success. This requires the ability to deal with ambiguity and to allow ambidexterity (being efficient, innovative and flexible at the same time). It is important to realise that the basis for this lies in the personality of the employees. It is important that each individual recognises what makes sense, and that we work together as a team and company to recognise what is meaningful and coherent for the company and its customers. It starts with the board members and managers who commission change. They must be prepared to change themselves in order to inspire sustainable change in the company. As an executive coach, team coach and consultant, I have observed and supported many change and transformation projects in management teams for over 20 years. A common thread runs through them all: only where the founders, the board or the management have scrutinised and changed themselves as a person with their leadership style has the company transformation been successful in the long term. Do you have any questions or comments? Want to know more about agile minimum? Write a comment or contact me at www.koru-bcc.de.