Agile Process Consultation -- An Applied Psychology Approach to Agility

An agile change effort in an organization needs to be understood in relation to human processes. Such theory and accompanying tools already existed almost 50 years ago in applied psychology. The core ideas of Agile Process Consultation are that a client initiating a change toward more agility often does not know what is wrong and the consultant needs to diagnose the problem jointly with the client. It is also assumed that the agile consultant cannot know the organizational culture of the client’s organization, which means that the client needs to be making the decisions based on the suggestions provided by the consultant. Since agile project management is spreading across the enterprise and outside of software development, we need situational approaches instead of prescribing low-level practices.

💡 Research Summary

The paper “Agile Process Consultation – An Applied Psychology Approach to Agility” revisits Edgar Schein’s classic Process Consultation theory (first articulated in 1969) and argues that it provides a more suitable framework for guiding organizational agile transformations than the prevailing expert‑prescription or “doctor‑patient” models. The authors begin by noting that while agile methods have spread far beyond software development, most existing guidance focuses on technical practices and neglects the human and psychological processes that underlie successful change. They cite a substantial body of organizational psychology literature (e.g., senior‑staff behavior under change, group dynamics, conflict, attitudes toward change) to demonstrate that agile adoption is fundamentally a cultural shift that requires buy‑in, motivation, and self‑organization at all levels.

Schein’s Process Consultation is presented as a relational, diagnostic approach in which the consultant does not arrive with a ready‑made solution but instead helps the client (the organization’s managers) to articulate what is “wrong,” to understand why, and to co‑create actionable steps. Three core principles are highlighted: (1) keeping the client in the driver’s seat, (2) building the client’s confidence that they can solve their own dilemmas, and (3) making as much data as possible visible to both parties. The paper contrasts this with two alternative consulting paradigms:

1. Expert‑Purchase Model – the client defines a problem, purchases external expertise, and expects a direct solution. Success depends on the client’s ability to correctly diagnose, communicate, assess the consultant’s capabilities, and anticipate implementation consequences.
2. Doctor‑Patient Model – the consultant acts as a diagnostician who prescribes “medicine.” This model assumes the consultant can obtain accurate information and that the client will accept the diagnosis and prescription, an assumption often violated by fear of retaliation and cultural mismatch.

The authors argue that both models fail in agile contexts because (a) agile change is multi‑layered and complex, making accurate self‑diagnosis difficult, and (b) the consultant cannot fully understand the client’s unique culture without extensive immersion. Consequently, prescribing a one‑size‑fits‑all agile framework (e.g., Scrum, SAFe) is likely to encounter resistance and low adoption.

Seven specific assumptions from Schein’s theory are mapped onto agile transformation challenges:

1. Clients often sense a problem but cannot specify it – agile bottlenecks (e.g., lack of autonomy, poor feedback loops) are hard to locate without joint diagnosis.
2. Clients are unaware of the kinds of help available – technical managers may not recognize behavioral or cultural interventions.
3. Clients have constructive intent but need guidance on what to improve – without understanding their own norms, they may misapply agile practices.
4. All organizations can become more effective by learning to diagnose and manage strengths/weaknesses – no organization is perfect; compensatory mechanisms must be tailored.
5. Consultants cannot learn the client’s culture without exhaustive study – thus solutions must be co‑created.
6. Clients must internalize the problem and solution to implement and learn for future issues – otherwise change is superficial.
7. The core function of Process Consultation is to transfer diagnostic and problem‑solving skills – enabling sustainable self‑improvement.

The paper further enumerates human processes relevant to agile work (communication, team building, problem solving, group norms, leadership, feedback, inter‑group dynamics) and stresses that scaling agile (e.g., across multiple teams or departments) amplifies inter‑group challenges, reinforcing the need for a situational, culture‑aware approach.

In the conclusion, the authors reaffirm that agile transformations are cultural transformations; therefore, understanding and managing human processes is a prerequisite for success. They cite recent software engineering studies linking team dynamics and change attitudes to agile outcomes, supporting their claim that a situational, Process‑Consultation‑based approach is essential. The paper calls for further empirical research to map specific human‑process factors in various organizational contexts and to develop nuanced, context‑specific agile transition guidelines, moving away from prescriptive low‑level practice checklists toward flexible, people‑centered change strategies.