This study surveyed 204 executives and employees from companies in German-speaking countries to assess organizational agility. The study examined what business environment factors drive the need for agility ("agility drivers") and how sensitive and responsive companies are to changes. It also evaluated what enables agility ("agility enablers") and compared more agile to less agile organizations. The study found most companies face agility drivers like intense competition but lack sufficient sensitivity and responsiveness. It also identified gaps between current and desired states of agility enablers. Comparing more and less agile firms provided insights into effective enablers of agility.

1. Change Management Study 2014 / 2015
» Agility – Surviving
Uncertain and Unpredictable
Times in Business
Kienbaum Management Consultants

2. 2 Thema
Published by Kienbaum Management Consultants GmbH.
All rights reserved. The reproduction, microfilming, and recording or processing
by electronic means without the express consent of the authors is prohibited.
The opinions expressed in this publication represent the opinions of the authors.
For reasons of legibility alone, this publication uses a generic masculine form to
refer to both genders.

3. 3Contents
Preface 4
1. Executive Summary 6
2. The Study 7
3. The Findings 14
3.1 The Business Environment – Drivers of Agility 16
3.2 Agility: Sensitivity and Responsiveness 18
3.3 What Enables Agility? 20
3.4 Conclusions 25
4. Implications for Managerial Practice 26
Recommended Literature 29
Contact 30
» Contents

4. 4 Preface
» Preface
Dear Readers!
“Change management” has become a ubiquitous term in business theory and practice. Many of the much
vaunted concepts of change management, however, come with strings attached: They often follow
organizational and managerial concepts that assume organizational change to be fully predictable and
controllable, and they only too frequently introduce change as a temporary event. Once the target state
has been achieved, the change phase is replaced by a phase of stability and “normality”, of stable
structures, procedures, and processes.
Businesses are increasingly facing a completely different reality: Coming out of a change now means
simply going into the next changes. This is causing a unique state of change fatigue and a yearning for
the deceptive stability and routines of the olden days – in essence, for a static state. This goes not only
for employees and line managers, but also for the very top executives. They often expect others to
change, but themselves fall prey to relying on old experiences or past achievements, continuing to apply
familiar concepts, patterns, or the old formulas of past success. A frank look shows how they too are
struggling with adjusting to the new state of constant change.
In a time characterized by discontinuity, uncertainty, a lack of transparency, and unpredictability, com-
panies are facing a new challenge: To become agile – as a permanent requirement for agile organizations
with agile cultures, not as a one-off, temporary project. Agility is a fundamental and necessary com-
petence for businesses trying to stay successful in uncertain and fast-changing environments.
Stability understood correctly or appropriate planning and agility are not mutually exclusive. But organi-
zational structures, processes, and management or leadership tools and systems are far different in
environments that demand agility from those at companies who can rely on stable or static environments,
where markets, customers, and competitors behave in transparent, unchanging, and predictable ways.
Many more companies are now facing environments that returning from “stable”, “static”, and “trans-
parent” to “unstable”, “unpredictable”, and “opaque”. In response to this switch, Kienbaum has asked
them to what extent they consider agility a necessary organizational competence. At the same time, the
study explores what enables companies to be agile – and what distinguishes the agile companies from
their less agile peers.
We hope this study will offer you as many interesting new insights and impulses as it gave us and enable
you to make your organization, your management, and your leaders more agile – put more briefly:
to make you more agile!
We thank Kai Töpel for his great support with designing, conducting, and processing the study!
Yours,
Dr. Achim Mollbach Jens Bergstein

5. 5Vorwort

6. 6 Executive Summary
For the purposes of this study, a selection of tier-1 executives,
executives below that level, and managers and employees in
certain corporate functions (HR, controlling, IT etc.) were
surveyed about the state of agility in their organizations.
In its first part, the study investigated what was identified as
“agility drivers” and revealed that most companies are faced,
to different degrees, with environments and markets that
demand agile behaviour. The majority of the participating
companies is affected by a considerable spike in the intensity
of competition in their markets. At the same time, the results
show that companies are not regarded as agile as they should
be from the point of view of the respondents. The temptation
to follow the old habits and formulaic responses from the
past seems to be too strong. There is a general gap between
the need for agility at the participating companies and their
actual agility. Many companies simply lack the ability to re-
cognize changes in the markets or more general technological
or social shifts and to respond quickly and flexibly to these
signals. However, there are clear differences in terms of how
agile businesses are: We can distinguish with some certainty
between more agile and less agile organizations. One reason
for this distinct difference in their agility lies in the different
competences, abilities, and infrastructural means they have
to promote agility (enablers). More agile companies tend to
show much more dominant “agility enablers”. By compa-
rison, their less agile peers tend to look to the past when
making decisions or taking action in the present.
The results of this study offer a telling insight into how com-
panies can be made more agile. However, this is not a
challenge for an isolated project, a single intervention, or a
handpicked group of enablers alone. What is needed to pro-
mote real agility is a permanent process covering and
capturing the entire organization, a process that everybody
can and should contribute to actively. Promoting agility there-
fore also needs a new type of cooperation and collaboration
between different functions, groups, and levels of hierarchy
across the organization!
1. Executive Summary

7. 7The Study
Past organizational theory and management concepts have
often assumed the business environment to be a stable and
dependable factor. These concepts imply that future trends
and changes in the environment are easily predicted and
anticipated in good time. For companies working in such
stable and transparent environments, the levers for success
are the planning of the right targets and actions, the proper
regulation of activities and responsibilities, the establishment
of standard processes and systems, and other operational
routines and habits. When the environment becomes unstable
or dynamic and future trends and events become harder to
predict, these levers lose much of their practical value. In fact,
they might hobble the abilities of the organizations relying on
them. What companies in such environments have to do is to
develop agility as a meta-competence on top of their specific
skill sets and competences. With agility, they can stay
successful in uncertain, unpredictable, and chaotic times.
Organizational structures and leadership or management
systems need to be scrutinized to see whether they promote
or indeed prevent the rise of agility in the organization.
2. The Study
What is Agility?
Illustration 1: The study explores the critical ability of organizations
to recognize and adjust immediately to changes in their environments
Driver 1
Intense competition
Driver 2
Dynamic conditions
and environments
Driver 3
Technological change
Driver 4
Changing customer preferences
and habits
External agility requirements affecting organizations (drivers)
Agility Enablers
Organizational Agility
Organization
Sensitivity Responsiveness
By agility, we refer to the ability of a company or organizati-
on to anticipate changes and incidents around them quickly,
without much notice, and with appropriate accuracy. This
sub-component of agility can be called sensitivity, and it
is a necessary precondition for achieving true agility: If you
do not notice anything or are too slow to do so, you can-
not respond appropriately. The second factor that is needed
to become agile is responsiveness, i.e. the ability to move
and respond quickly and flexibly in the markets in which the
company or organization is operating. Not everybody who
sees changes coming in due time is also able to respond
quickly enough to them.
Agility is not just the basic ability of companies to recognize
the adverse forces and environmental risks they might be
facing and to respond quickly, flexibly, and effectively to
them. Rather, agility is needed in opaque or fast-changing
environments when it comes to recognizing and seizing
business opportunities, potential in the markets, or competi-
tive advantages.
We can assume that a company has to possess more of the
meta-competence “agility” the more its relevant environ-
ment is characterized by instability or fast-paced and abrupt
changes, that is, uncertainty and lasting unpredictability. A
not negligible number of companies, however, base their
organizational models and management or leadership con-
cepts and systems on the “old days” of stable and trans-
parent business environments. In other words: In a time when
the organizational environment is becoming more and more

8. 8 Die Studie
dynamic and uncertain, many companies respond by adding
more planning, more regulation, more hierarchy, and more
and more complex reporting and controlling processes. These
companies will face the agility gap that can threaten their
very existence!
The key influences and environmental forces that cause
a need for companies to development and instil the meta-
competence “agility” can be called the drivers of agility.
We can name four primary drivers:
» Highly intensive competition in the industry or relevant
market.
» Extensive and fast-paced technological change in the
industry or relevant market.
» Frequent and abrupt changes in customers’ preferences
and habits in the relevant market.
» Constant and fast-paced changes to the environment
and operating conditions of the business (e.g. sudden and
unexpected legislative change with a major impact on the
development of the business).
Agility as a meta-competence is the product of many dif-
ferent factors or competences in organizations. Such agility-
inducing factors can be called enablers, that is, aspects,
infrastructure, or specific abilities / organizational com-
petences of a company or its people that enable their orga-
nization to be agile, that is, sensitive and responsive to the
dynamic and often hazy world and markets around it. The
following enablers have been identified in current literature
on the subject and were used as the basis for the survey
conducted by us.

9. 9The Study
Illustration 2: Enablers
Enablers
Top management and executives
as the engines of change
» Our top executives are role-models for change ventures and get the commitment
of the entire leadership team.
» Our executives shape the necessary changes proactively and with purpose.
Culture of learning and innovation » Our employees have the capacities (time and resources) for continuous learning
and the improvement of their competences and abilities.
» Time and resources are invested into the development of new ideas, even if their
added value is not certain at the outset.
» We learn from mistakes and failures.
Problem-solving and decision-making
processes designed for flexibility,
speed, and practical implementation
» Our top executives take decisions immediately.
» Multiple solutions are prepared before problems arise (what-if scenarios).
» Decisions are executed immediately once they are taken.
Market and customer awareness in
the overall organization and constant
development of core competences
» All areas of our organization are aligned with the needs of our customers.
» Strategy design and monitoring are important and permanent processes.
» Our core competences are fostered and developed on a constant basis.
» We put a lot of emphasis on continuous brand development.
Employee’s involvement in strategy
and product development
» The skills and expertise of the entire workforce is used to develop novel
and competitive products and services.
» Employees with direct experience of the markets and customers are actively included
in the strategic discourse.
Culture of trust and empowerment » There is a strong culture of trust, with lots of freedom for autonomous practice
and free decisions.
» Our rules and regulations give employees and executives enough space to respond
flexibly and quickly to the specific requirements in their areas (empowerment).
» Our executives encourage our employees to take decisions and act autonomously.
Openness for change and innovation
in the workforce
» Our employees actively support changes.
» Our employees are receptive for new methods and ideas.
Management structures and processes
designed for flexibility and speed
» Our management systems, processes, and rules are designed to enable and support
the implementation of sudden, emergent changes.
» We put a lot of emphasis on an open hierarchy and short channels of communication
and chains of command.
Systematic and coherent
HR processes
» We use HR processes to source, develop, assess, and recompense employees
appropriately.
New technologies for internal
and external communication
and collaboration
» New technologies for communication (such as social media).
» New technologies for cooperation (such as cloud computing and groupware).
On top of these potential enablers of agility, literature
often mentions certain key “non-enablers” or, out more
bluntly, “agility preventers”. Individual people as well as
groups and entire organizations often tend to look to past
successes or experiences to guide their current actions and
decisions. They act on a basis of habit and routine. In manage-
ment science, this phenomenon has been described as
“path dependence”: Companies are caught on a path they
cannot leave. Path dependence and routine or the habit to
follow past experience and old achievements are virtual anti-
dotes to agility!

10. The first purpose of this study was to explore the extent to
which companies and organizations have established them-
selves in agile environments and have formed the necessary
DRIVERS in their environments, following statements made
by representatives of these companies.
A second aim of the study was to ascertain whether – again
from the point of view of the participants – companies have
learnt to anticipate the relevant drivers (sensitivity) and how
fast and flexible they are in response to them (responsive-
ness). While this concerns the “as-is” state of agility at the
participating enterprises, a next step would inquire into their
target “to-be” state. A comparison of these two states can
offer meaningful insights into the current gaps and dis-
crepancies and tell us more about the threats and risks that
companies are facing in this area. This is relevant whenever
the participants consider their target agility to be much high-
er than the as-is state their companies have achieved to date.
Such a result would indicate that the companies in question
are not able to recognize the changes and unexpected events
around them and within them or, at least, do so too late
(sensitivity) and do not respond at all or again too slowly to
them (responsiveness). This would imply that companies are
taken by surprise by risks or adverse events and opportunities
alike or that they miss their presence entirely. At the same
time, it would suggest that they are not fast or flexible enough
to respond appropriately to such risks, events, opportunities,
or success potential around them – continuing with their
long-established routines, standard programmes, or plans
long overtaken by reality.
Objectives

11. 11Ergebnisse
A third purpose of the survey was to inquire into the enablers
of the meta-competence “agility”. Current research has
proposed a number of different sets of enablers, from which a
selection of possible enablers was chosen for use in the study.
The respondents were asked to assess whether these enablers
of agility are present in their organizations (as-is) and to state
whether they consider it important to establish these or other
enablers (to-be). Again, the results allow an interesting
insight into discrepancies between the current state and the
target, revealing potential threats for companies working in
agility-requiring environments.
Fourth, the study wanted to explore how agile companies
differ from their “not-agile” or less agile counterparts in terms
of these enablers. This difference could tell which possible
enablers indeed have an effect as “real” enablers, giving
companies invaluable insights into the enablers they should
be concentrating on in order to develop the agility they need.

12. 12
The sample for the study included (1) executives on the first
management tier, (2) executives and employees below the
first management tier, and (3) executives and employees in
support or corporate functions.
The participants were given a questionnaire with set items
in an online survey and asked to rate each item on a four-
point scale (1 = does not apply at all; 2 = tends to not apply;
3 = tends to apply; 4 = applies in full) in terms of how well
the statement applies to the situation at their organization.
The online survey was conducted in the first quarter of 2014.*
A total of 204 executives and employees from companies
based in the German-speaking countries (D-A-CH) took part
in the survey. 25% of the participants held top management
functions, while another 40% held executive functions below
the first management tier. 35% of the participants were
executives or employees in corporate or support functions.
Methods and Sample
The Study
Illustration 3: Participants by their functions
The respondents were recruited from companies of many
different sizes, ranging from multinational corporations to
small and medium-sized enterprises. At 51%, participants
from SMEs represented the largest group. The respondents
also represent a wide range of industries.
35%
25%
40%
Tier-1 management
Management other than tier-1
Corporate functions
Illustration 4: Distribution of companies by headcount
Less than 1,000 employees
1,001 to 5,000 employees
5,001 to 10,000 employees
More than 10,000 employees
51%
19%
9%
21%

13. 13The Study
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
40%
15%
7%
17%
21%
Lessthan
€
100
m
illion
€
100
to
€
500
m
illion
€500
to
€
1,000
m
illion€
1,000
to
€
10,000
m
illion
M
orethan
€
10,000
m
illion
Illustration 5: Distribution of companies by revenue
Illustration 6: Participating companies by sectors of industry
0 5 10 15 20 25
Mechanical engineering / Electrical engineering 7%
Energy / Utilities 7%
Pharmaceutical / Life Sciences / Chemical 6%
Retail 5%
Healthcare / Hospital / Medical Services 5%
Transport / Logistics 4%
Media 4%
Consumer goods 3%
Automotive / Suppliers 2%
High-tech / IT / Software / Telecommunication 9%
Public administration 9%
Banks / Financial services / Insurance 14%
Services 23%
Others 2%

14. The results of the survey are introduced in this chapter. The
first part will explore the extent to which the participating
companies are based in environments or markets that
demand agility (agility drivers). The second part will consider
how the participants see themselves in terms of the dual
traits of agility – sensitivity and responsiveness (as-is status).
This will then be contrasted with the participants’ responses
concerned the to-be state they are aiming for. In a final step,
the results for the enablers of agility will be outlined and
explored with a view to how more agile and less agile com-
panies differ in terms of their enablers.
3. The Findings

15. 15Ergebnisse

16. 16 The Findings
The first part of the survey asked the participants about the
extent to which their organizations are working in environ-
ments that demand agility. Is their environment marked by
highly intensive competition, fast-paced technological change,
unpredictable changes in general conditions, or quick and
abrupt changes in customers’ preferences?
The results indicate that all companies tend to face environ-
ments that require a certain amount of agility. The respon-
dents primarily speak of highly intensive competition: 59%
state that a highly intensive industry or market applies fully in
their case, with another 25% stating that this tends to apply.
Only 16% would not say that this applies to some degree or
at all. Since intense competition is one of the forces behind
dynamic and unpredictable markets, we can assume that this
intensity is an important driver for the development of agility
at most of the participating companies.
Social and political conditions also seem to be in constant
and fast-paced flux for the participating companies. 40% of
the participants answered that this applies in full and 43%
that it tends to apply. Only 17% consider their environments
to be rather static or only subject to slow and limited change.
Current economic theory and popular management publica-
tions frequently speak of rapid technological evolution, but
this trend does not seem to figure as strongly for the respon-
dents: Although more than half of the participating compa-
nies are fully or partially subject to such changes, a full 39%
of the participants state that their industry is not at all or only
hardly subject to extensive or fast-paced technological
change. This surprising result should, however, be considered
with an eye on the sectors of industry the respondents hail
from: Many participants come from service companies in the
banking/finance or insurance industry or from public institu-
tions. When one compares the mean scores by sectors of
industry, the high-tech / IT / software/ telecommunications
industry shows a much higher presence of this driver (at 3.59)
than the banking / finance / insurance industry (at 2.66).
This example shows that the drivers have a substantially
different effect depending on the industry in question, which
applies in particular to the impact of technological change.
3.1 The Organizational Environment – Drivers of Agility

17. 17The Findings
Illustration 7: Aspects of the organizational environment (presence of agility drivers)
The results for the driver “frequent and abrupt changes in
customers’ preferences and habits” are striking: only 17% of
the participants state that this applies in full in their cases.
For 37%, it “tends to apply”. No fewer than 41% of the
participants state that this driver tends to not apply at their
companies. Comparing the mean responses for the different
industries also shows only little variation.
We can therefore state that most of the participating com-
panies are, on the whole, affected by all of the drivers of the
meta-competence “agility”. However, we need to distinguish
by the different drivers. A clear majority of the participating
companies are working in markets characterized by intensive
competition. Constant and fast-paced change in their social
and political environments is also the norm for a majority of
the respondents. By contrast, only about half of all companies
see themselves exposed to strong technological change or
frequent and abrupt changes in customers’ preferences.
Despite this, we can assume that most companies are forced
by their environments to develop and establish agility in their
organizations.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Intensityofcom
petitionEnvironm
entalconditions
Technologicalchange
Custom
ers’preferencesand
habits
100
4% 2% 7% 5%
12% 15%
32%
41%
25%
43%
36%
37%
59%
40%
25%
17%
Applies in full
Tends to apply
Tends to not apply
Does not apply at all

18. 18 The Findings
Hopes and Realities: The Agility Gap
Companies can have a finely tuned sense that captures the
minute currents of change in their environment. This com-
ponent of agility is referred to as their sensitivity, and it re-
presents a precondition for the second component of agility,
i.e. responsiveness. An organization that needs too long to
recognize changes or only picks up on the big and loud
signals (or indeed an organization that closes its eyes and
ears completely to change) cannot hope to respond quickly or
flexibly to it. At the same time, sensitivity to changes, trends,
and the events they bring about does not automatically imply
the ability to respond to these. Despite all sensitivity, the
chains of command might be too long or operate too slowly,
or events are responded to with old and unfitting routines
and customs. Companies might also see the events going on,
but decide to “sit them out”. All of this makes responsiveness
a second, independent element of agility.
In a first step, the study asked the participants to rate the
as-is state of their organizations in terms of sensitivity and
responsiveness, followed by an assessment of what the to-be
state should be when it comes to recognizing or responding
to the various drivers. The results show similar as-is scores for
both sensitivity and responsiveness. It is evident that the par-
ticipants do not see their companies as being as sensitive and
responsive as they should be in view of the drivers of agility.
3.2 Agiltiy: Sensitivity and Responsiveness
Illustration 8: How sensitive is your company today when the following
four drivers are concerned, and how sensitive should it be (in percent)?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Intensityofcom
petitionEnvironm
entalconditions
Technologicalchange
Custom
ers’preferencesand
habits
100
22
55
23
56
37
7
24
56
19
58
35
6
29
43
23
49
36
14
30
50
19
65
28
7
Illustration 9: How responsive is your company today when the following
four drivers are concerned, and how responsive should it be (in percent)?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Intensityofcom
petitionEnvironm
entalconditions
Technologicalchange
Custom
ers’preferencesand
habits
100
53
40
7
29
52
18
54
40
5
33
47
16
49
39
9
31
53
15
63
32
3
27
57
15
Applies in full
Tends to apply
Tends to not apply
Does not apply at all

19. 19The Findings
This applies in particular for the driver “frequent and abrupt
changes in customers’ preferences and habits”. The clear
discrepancies relate less to a low as-is score for the other
drivers, but rather to the specific expectations expressed by
the respondents that their companies should be sensitive to
the sudden changes in the customers’ habits and preferences
by e.g. taking them on board as soon as possible. Further-
more, this relates to the strongly expressed expectation that
the companies should be quick and flexible in their responses
to the developments and changes in customers’ preferences
and habits. These results are striking insofar as the responses
of the participants had shown that their companies are
actually less affected by this driver than by e.g. the intensity
of the competition. This can be explained by the simple fact
that the customer represents the central engine of success for
any company. However, this “primacy of the customer” is not
yet reflected in the actions of companies, as seen by the
respondents, as there remains a clear as-is / to-be gap for
both their sensitivity and their responsiveness to customers’
preferences and habits. Companies therefore tend to face the
challenge of having to reinforce their agility for “frequent and
abrupt changes in customers’ preferences and habits” by a
considerable degree.
The other drivers also show basic need for improvement. One
in four respondents state that their companies are not at all
or only hardly sensitive to changes in their social or political
surroundings, and 30% believe that they do not respond
quickly or flexibly enough to these trends. This creates
substantial risks for the companies.
We can state that most companies will have to develop or,
indeed, acquire the meta-competence “agility” in the first
place. That means: they have to learn to recognize trends and
changes much sooner and much more accurately and re-
spond much more flexibly to them than they are doing today.

20. 20 The Findings
Reality and Expectations
For a company to become agile, it needs to possess certain
personal and organizational competences, infrastructural
capabilities, or traits that enable agility. The respondents
were therefore asked to rate the presence of these enablers of
agility in their companies. The as-is ranking shows that the
mean score for all enablers lies below 3, which is also due to
a substantial variance in the scores awarded for each enabler
in the different participating companies. Seen wacross all
companies, the mean as-is scores for the enablers range from
2.7 (“We put a lot of emphasis on continuous brand develop-
ment”) to 2.09 (“We have multiple solutions for problems
(what-if scenarios)”). A marked gap to the most strongly
developed enablers are also found for “New technologies for
cooperation (“groupware”)” (M = 2.20) and “The expertise of
the workforce is used to develop novel products” (M = 2.36).
The bottom third of the ranking also includes the items
“Our top executives are role-models for change ventures”
(M = 2.42) and “Management structures and processes
designed for flexibility and speed” (M = 2.43).
3.3 What Enables Agility in Business (Enablers)
Our employees have the capacities for continuous learning and improvement
Time and resources are invested into the development of new ideas
Open hierarchy
Systematic and coherent HR processes
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Strategy design and monitoring are important and permanent processes
There is a strong culture of trust, with lots of freedom
Our top executives take decisions immediately
Our rules and regulations give employees and executives
enough space to respond flexibly
All areas of our organization are aligned with the needs of our customers
Our core competences are fostered and developed on a constant basis
Our executives encourage our employees to take decisions and act autonomously
Our employees are receptive for new methods and ideas
We put a lot of emphasis on continuous brand development
Our executives shape the necessary changes proactively and with purpose
Employees with experience of the markets are included in the strategic discourse
Our employees actively support changes
Decisions are executed immediately
We draw lasting lessons from past mistakes
Management structures and processes designed for flexibility and speed
New technologies for communication (social media)
Our top executives are role-models for change ventures
The expertise of the workforce is used to develop novel products
New technologies for cooperation (“groupware”)
We have multiple solutions for problems (what-if scenarios)
Illustration 10: As-is state of the enablers at the participating organizations
As-Is
To-Be

21. 21The Findings
Even quite low as-is scores do not immediately imply anything
about necessary changes. These can only be identified in a
comparison with the target to-be state. For this reason, the
respondents were asked to rate the enablers that should be
implemented at their organizations. The results (ranking of
mean answers) are true to expectation in showing generally
much higher scores than the as-is survey. This implies that the
respondents can see a basic discrepancy for every enabler in
question. However, the participants also do not allot similar
importance to all to-be targets, even though the score are
very near to each other in the top two thirds of the items.
The highest mean score is awarded to the enabler “We draw
lasting lessons from past mistakes” (M = 3.66), followed by
“All areas of our organization are aligned with the needs of
our customers” (M = 3.58). The lowest mean scores in the
to-be ranking can be found for the enablers “New techno-
logies for communication (social media)” (M = 3.05) and
“New technologies for cooperation (“groupware”)” (M = 2.97).
Our executives encourage our employees to take decisions and act autonomously
Open hierarchy
Systematic and coherent HR processes
Our employees actively support changes
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Our top executives are role-models for change ventures
Our core competences are fostered and developed on a constant basis
Decisions are executed immediately
There is a strong culture of trust, with lots of freedom
Our employees have the capacities for continuous learning and improvement
Our executives shape the necessary changes proactively and with purpose
Our employees are receptive for new methods and ideas
All areas of our organization are aligned with the needs of our customers
We draw lasting lessons from past mistakes
Strategy design and monitoring are important and permanent processes
The expertise of the workforce is used to develop novel products
Our top executives take decisions immediately
Employees with experience of the markets are included in the strategic discourse
Our rules and regulations give employees and executives
enough space to respond flexibly
Management structures and processes designed for flexibility and speed
We have multiple solutions for problems (what-if scenarios)
We put a lot of emphasis on continuous brand development
Time and resources are invested into the development of new ideas
New technologies for communication (social media)
New technologies for cooperation (“groupware”)
Illustration 11: To-be state of the enablers at the participating companies
As-Is
To-Be

22. 22 The Findings
Relating the enablers’ as-is scores with the responses con-
cerning the intended or wished for target states, we recognize
clear discrepancies between the as-is and to-be states for
certain enablers. These include “We draw lasting lessons from
past mistakes”, “We have multiple solutions for problems
(what-if scenarios)”, “Our top executives are role-models for
change ventures”, and “The expertise of the workforce is used
to develop novel products”. For these enablers with strong
gaps between the as-is and to-be states, we can see definite
room for improvement at the participating companies. The
responses suggest e.g. that companies should learn more
from mistakes than they are used to doing at this point.
If one considers only the gaps for the eleven highest-ranked
enablers (to-be), that is, only the enablers appreciated most
by the respondents (mean scores from 3.66 to 3.50), the
picture is similar. The participants find it particularly im-
portant that their companies learn from past mistakes, that
their top executives act as role-models for change, and that
decisions are executed immediately. It is just these enablers
that present the most obvious gap between the current state
and the expectations of the participants.
From a perspective of agility, the findings for the “negative
enabler” are particularly alarming: It becomes obvious that
the participants see their companies as basically more reliant
on past examples for their decisions than they should be.
This implies that companies need to detach themselves from
their ingrained routines and old paths in order to achieve real
agility. A particularly interesting feature: The as-is score for
this negative enabler is higher than the to-be score.
Illustration 12: As-Is / To-Be gap for the 11 enablers with the highest to-be scores (ranking from scores of 3.66 to 3.50)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Our executives encourage our employees to take decisions and act autonomously
Open hierarchy
Our top executives are role-models for change ventures
Our core competences are fostered and developed on a constant basis
Decisions are executed immediately
There is a strong culture of trust, with lots of freedom
Our employees have the capacities for continuous learning and improvement
Our executives shape the necessary changes proactively and with purpose
Our employees are receptive for new methods and ideas
All areas of our organization are aligned with the needs of our customers
We draw lasting lessons from past mistakes
Illustration 13: The Negative Enabler – “Decisions tend to follow past examples”
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Gap
As-Is
To-Be

23. 23The Findings
The Leadership and Management Enablers Ranked by the
Respondents’ Functions
When one considers the as-is state of the enablers relating to
aspects of management and leadership in terms of the
functions held by the respondents (top executives, executives
and employees below the top management level, employees
in support or corporate functions), we can see some major
differences in the responses. Looking at the differences in the
responses from top executives and non-top-executives, the
discrepancies are eye-catching in the cases of “Our top
executives take decisions immediately”, “Decisions are exe-
cuted immediately”, and “Our top executives are role-models
for change ventures” as well as “Open hierarchy”. The top
executives rate their performance in terms of these enablers
much more positively than the respondents from the other
two groups. This does not come as a surprise: The Kienbaum
Change Study of 2011 /2012 already revealed that top exe-
cutives tend to have a generally more “positive” image
of their role and their behaviour than other groups in their
organizations.
Differences between More Agile and Less Agile Companies
Do more agile and less agile organization differ in the
current presence of these enablers? A difference would offer
meaningful proof which enablers actually help make com-
panies agile in their environments. With this in mind, the
participating companies were grouped as “less agile” or “more
agile” organizations depending on their agility scores (as-is
values: Driver x Sensitivity / Responsiveness).
Comparing the mean scores for the enablers in both groups,
one can see marked differences that are significant for all
enablers. We can generally say that more agile companies
indeed show much more pronounced enablers than their less
agile counterparts.
1,5
1,7
1.9
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.1
3.3
Ourtop
executivestake
decisionsim
m
ediately
Decisionsareexecuted
im
m
ediately
Ourtop
executivesarerole-
m
odelsforchangeventuresOpen
hierarchy
Ourexecutivesshapethe
necessarychangespro-
activelyand
with
purpose
Illustration 14: Enablers that concern leadership quality are rated
significantly differently by different respondent groups
Tier-1 management
Management other than tier-1
Corporate functions

24. 24 The Findings
The scale presents the difference in the as-is score between
more agile and less agile organizations. The higher the score,
the more developed the enabler is in a more agile organiza-
tion than a less agile organization.
The most obvious discrepancy can be found in the enablers
“New technologies for communication (social media)“, “Our
top executives take decisions immediately”, “Management
structures and processes designed for flexibility and speed”,
“Our top executives are role-models for change ventures“, and
“Decisions are executed immediately”. Interestingly, the
differences between more agile and less agile companies for
the enablers “Strategy design and monitoring”, “Capacities
for learning and improvement”, and “Our executives encourage
our employees to take decisions and act autonomously” are
also significant, but not as strongly pronounced as the en-
ablers named above.
A clear difference can be identified when considering the
“negative enabler”. It suggests that less agile companies tend
to look much more to the past for inspiration when taking
decisions than their more agile peers do.
Illustration 15: Agile companies among the participants benefit
from a markedly stronger presence of selected enablers
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Decisions tend to follow past examples*
New technologies for communication (social media)
Our top executives take decisions immediately
Management structures and processes designed for flexibility and speed
Our top executives are role-models for change ventures
Decisions are executed immediately
Open hierarchy
Our employees actively support changes
Our employees are receptive for new methods and ideas
Our core competences are fostered and developed on a constant basis
Our executives shape the necessary changes proactively and with purpose
* Negative enabler (decreasing agility)
0.83
0.77
0.6
0.59
0.59
0.58
0.58
0.57
0.55
0.54
-0.47

25. 25The Findings
The study’s findings make it clear that agility has attained
major importance as a meta-competence of crucial signi-
ficance for the success of the participating companies. There
are significant gaps between the current presence of the rele-
vant drivers and enablers and the state that the respondents
aspire to. At the same time, the study delivers invaluable
ideas for improving the state of agility. Comparing agile and
less agile companies shows which enablers offer a real return
in the pursuit of more agility. These enablers should be estab-
lished and developed in the active management and opera-
tional routines.
We hope that this study has contributed to making the ques-
tion of agility more tangible with a set of clearly defined
3.4 Conclusions
enablers and thus created a kind of language that helps com-
panies speak about agility. For a truly effective improvement
of companies’ change agility needs two things more than
anything else: New concepts that allow the companies to
perceive the reality around them in new ways, and a suf-
ficiently concrete and pragmatic way to introduce new practices
in thoughts, actions, and decisions.
For us, it remains to be said that the entire topic of agility will
only gain in importance for the foreseeable future. This
makes it even more important for companies everywhere to
slowly intensify their awareness and involvement with the
issue and to establish a shared notion of agility as the com-
mon ground on which to get to work.

26. The results of the Kienbaum Change Study 2014 / 2015 have
pinpointed a number of aspects that are of crucial impor-
tance for managerial practice in its pursuit of agility in their
organizations. We can generally state that it is not enough to
implement one or two enablers in isolation and expect these
to increase organizational agility. Allocating responsibility
for selected enablers or actions to individual departments or
areas will also have no meaningful effect on overall agility.
Instead, companies need an entire set of enablers, rolled out
across their entire organizations. Increasing agility is no iso-
lated, specialist job of HR professionals, marketing, or sales,
but a general organizational commitment that involves all
relevant functions and areas of the organization. Promoting
agility will therefore not be “done and dusted” with a one-off
intervention, a single workshop, or an isolated project. It is a
permanent challenge for managers and employees alike: The
danger of getting trapped again in old routines, habits, and
path dependencies is too great for everybody. And that
includes top managers who are often only too quick to
demand agility and change from others and not see the
contributions they themselves have to make!
The following table outlines a selection of ways in which
company’s managers can promote the growth of agility for
the various levers identified here. As said above: The real
challenge is not the realization of the individual enablers, but
the initiation of a comprehensive evolutionary change in the
organization and the activation of the key levers for the
purpose.
4. Implications for Managerial Practice

27. 27Implications for Managerial Practice
Identified targets
for action
Pragmatic suggestions
Significant
discrepancies
between expectations
and reality for all
enablers
» Strengthen agility and the ability to change with a dedicated organizational unit,
e.g. CoE Change or Organizational Effectiveness in HR or in Organizational Development
» Develop a shared notion of the relevant agility levers for the company and a holistic agility
concept for all functions and areas of the business
» Establish a change toolbox aligned with the concept of agility to apply agility in tools
and agile project methods
» Permanent review of the implementation of the agility concept
Strengthening
the outside-in
perspective
» Monitor trends systematically and permanently to analyse and assess changes in the markets
and general environment, with the contribution of all areas, but primarily the areas working
in closest proximity to the market
» Regular information for managers and employees about developments and relevant incidents
in the markets and business environment
» Regular dialogue with customers and knowledge holders in the business environment,
trend scouts etc., e.g. in the form of a think tank
» Establish strategy development and monitoring as a permanent corporate process: Use the
expertise and experience of areas and employees working in close proximity to the markets
IT for
communication
(social media)
» Use social media purposefully with relevant tools / apps, manage its introduction and use
effectively
» Harmonize the formal organization (structure, processes, controlling systems) with the
principles of social media (networked, lateral cooperation)
» Ensure truly relevant virtual interactions with proper facilitation, follow-ups, and the visible
use of the results for the intended and announced purpose (experience shows: Using social
media is not an end in itself)
Top management
taking immediate
decisions
» Introduce efficient and effective governance structures with meaningful operation, information,
and decision-making routines
» Distinguish between committees working on conceptual questions and committees for
strategic debates or decisions
» Limit top management decisions to aspects that could not be handled by other areas or
functions
» Top managers should trust the expertise and competence for decisions on the lower levels
of the organization
Systems and
processes aimed
not at promoting
stability, but
encouraging agility
» Check all leadership and controlling systems in the organization (performance and resource
planning and controlling, remuneration etc.) for their impact on either path dependency /
rigidity or agility
» Establish a feed-forward system to add to feedback-driven controlling
» Align the targets and remuneration system with the aim of agility; e.g. establish more
relative and abstract than absolute or concrete targets; allow plans to be changed;
no link of variable remuneration with absolute, concrete, or rigid targets
» Define targets in groups to involve multiple levels and areas, instead of cascading down
individual targets and agreements
» Check the intensity of regulation at the organization: dare to be a “new broom”

28. 28 Implications for Managerial Practice
Identified targets
for action
Pragmatic suggestions
Top management
acting as role-
models for change
ventures
» Define the roles and responsibilities of all management levels before the change process
» Top management should act as sponsors of change for the entire change process
» Top managers should review their own patterns of behaviour, routines, and habits and
introduce their own learning processes
Decisions
being executed
immediately
» Define clear responsibilities and sufficient resources (time and personnel)
» Regular and mandatory activity monitoring and controlling
» Regular review workshops with the managers / users for feedback, improvements,
and lessons learned
» Penalize mistakes and omissions
Open hierarchies » Delegate responsibility “downwards”; as much authority for actions and decisions to be
placed in the operational units as possible
» Establish a two-way culture of communication to replace pure top-down communication
» Promote horizontal coordination between the areas
Employees actively
supporting change
» Clearly define the involvement of employees in change efforts
» Empower employees for changes (e.g. with HR development)
Employees being
receptive for new
ideas and methods
» Create trust in change and transformation projects by making the process transparent,
following up on announcements, and allowing the promised participation
» Conduct workshops that encourage employees to develop and share ideas
» Create a culture of learning and experimenting
» Allow job rotation and “temporary” job status
Core competences
being fostered
and developed on
a constant basis
» Systematic skills management should be introduced to get transparency about the
competences available in the organization (across the hierarchy)
» Core competences for strategy implementation should be defined regularly and included
in strategic competence management (workforce planning, HR development, recruiting)
» An infrastructure should be introduced that promotes the core competences
Decisions following
past examples
» The routines, habits, and unquestioned beliefs should be challenged regularly on all levels
(including top management!)
» Introduce a “debating culture”, even across hierarchical boundaries
» Opposition and criticism should be praised, not penalized
» More attention should go to the discontinuities, not the continuities in the environment.
» External actors and “unbiased outsiders” (from within or outside of the organization) should
offer criticism and encourage new perspectives in executive workshops (devil’s advocates)
» Regular “creative future workshops”
» Paradox and ambiguity management should be included in executive development

29. 29Recommended Literature
Birkinshaw, J. & Gibson, C. (2004). Building Ambidexterity Into an Organization.
In: MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW (summer 2004), 47 – 55.
Grant, Robert M. (2003). Strategic planning in a turbulent environment.
In: Strategic Management Journal, 24: 491 – 517.
Hassan, Zaid (2014). The Social Labs Revolution: A New Approach to Solving Our Most Complex Challenges.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Jafarnejad, A. & Shahaie, B. (2008). Evauating and Improving Organizational Agility.
In: Delhi Business Review, 9 (1), 1 – 18.
Raisch, S. & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes and Moderators.
In: Journal of Management, 34 (3), 375 – 409.
Reichwald, R.; Siebert, J. & Möslein, K. (2004). Leadership Excellence: Führungssysteme auf dem Prüfstand.
In: Personalführung, 3/2004, 50 – 56.
Schreyögg, G. (2013). In der Sackgasse. Organisationale Pfadabhängigkeit und ihre Folgen.
In: Organisationsentwicklung, Nr. 1, 21 – 28.
Syett, M. & Devine, M. (2012). Managing Uncertainty. Strategies for surviving and thriving in turbulent times.
The Economist/Profile Books.
Yaghoubi, N. & Dahmardeh, M. (2010). Analytical approach to effective factors on organizational agility.
In: Journal of Basic and Applied Research, 1 (1), 76 – 87.
» Recommended Literature

30. 30 Contact
Kienbaum Management Consultants GmbH
Hafenspitze
Speditionstraße 21
40221 Dusseldorf
Germany
» Contact
Dr. Achim Mollbach
Principal
Kienbaum Management Consultants, Dusseldorf
Phone: +49 211 96 59-257
Fax: +49 211 96 59-489
achim.mollbach@kienbaum.de
Jens Bergstein
Principal
Kienbaum Management Consultants, Berlin
Phone: +49 30 88 01 98-71
Fax: +49 30 88 01 98-66
jens.bergstein@kienbaum.de
www.kienbaum.de

32. 32 Thema
Kienbaum Management Consultants