How the Backward Stance of Agile Coaches Damaged Agility

Denise Wolf-Hill • September 12, 2024

And what is needed now


Throughout my life, I’ve had the privilege of serving as a hotline crisis counselor, a soccer coach, an agile coach, and a leadership coach. In each of these roles, the essence of coaching has remained the same: it's about guiding people through challenging situations, helping them unlock their potential, and driving outcomes that matter. But the way you coach—and the stance you take—changes depending on the context. This is why I believe the way agile coaches have been traditionally framed is no longer serving the needs of modern organizations.


Many business leaders today question whether agile even works or see agile coaches as mere facilitators with no direct impact on results. And part of this skepticism stems from a larger issue: many agile coaches have taken a backward stance. They’ve become passive observers rather than assertive leaders, guiding teams without stepping up to take responsibility for the overall transformation.


In my experience across different domains of coaching, whether helping people through a crisis, coaching young athletes to perform their best, or working with executives on leadership development, the most effective coaching always involves a balance of guidance, support, and, at times, directive action. Agile coaching should be no different.


The issue isn’t just that agile coaches have taken a backward stance—it’s that the concept of “agile coaching” itself has become too narrow. As someone who has coached in different capacities, I’ve learned that effective coaching adapts to the environment and needs of the people. Businesses today need coaches who can blend consulting and coaching, who can step forward to guide strategic outcomes while empowering teams to own their work.


I’ve seen firsthand what happens when coaches remain too passive. In one instance, I helped a client hire someone to lead their agile transformation. Despite the person’s  extensive experience as a coach, the transformation fell apart in part due to their reluctance to take a leadership role and drive the process forward. In another situation, a passive coach frustrated the business stakeholders, leading to complaints that the organization wasn’t moving fast enough. In both cases, the coaches’ backward stance contributed to stalled progress.


The skepticism around coaching often stems from the lack of measurable, attributable results. Anecdotally, I’ve heard that Capital One recently removed all its agile coaches, citing that they had achieved their agile goals. But this reflects a broader trend—leaders aren’t seeing how coaching directly contributes to outcomes like profitability, speed to market, or customer satisfaction.


As a soccer coach, you know whether the team is winning or losing. As a crisis counselor, you know if someone finds a way to navigate through a tough moment. The results are visible. In business, however, the role of coaches needs to be similarly results-oriented. Coaches must step out of the shadows, communicate their value, and demonstrate how their efforts contribute to key business metrics.


Just as I might adjust strategies mid-season as a soccer coach or help reframe a person’s mindset during a crisis, organizations benefit from regular coaching health checks. These external assessments allow coaches to evaluate how the organization is progressing and help teams make necessary adjustments to ensure continuous improvement.


Coaches conducting health checks provide an impartial perspective on team dynamics, processes, and outcomes—surfacing opportunities for refinement that internal teams might miss. These health checks can be a game-changer for organizations stuck in an “agile plateau.”


Across all the different types of coaching I’ve done, there’s one thing I’ve learned: sometimes, people need direct advice. Someone who worked extensively with Thomas Leonard and others to found the International Coaching Federation (ICF), once confirmed for me that consulting skills are crucial for professional coaches because sometimes, clients need you to tell them what to do.


In the fast-paced world of business, this is particularly true. Business leaders want clear, actionable insights that can drive results. Coaches must be comfortable stepping forward, blending coaching with consulting, and offering the direct input needed to achieve strategic goals.


The future of business coaching is about much more than agile coaches working with frameworks like Scrum or Kanban. The role of the coach is evolving to meet the broader needs of businesses. It’s no longer enough to just facilitate agility — coaches must help organizations deliver real business value. They must be comfortable guiding strategic conversations, providing feedback, and helping businesses navigate change, just as I’ve done in my different coaching roles.


The backward stance of many agile coaches has contributed to the perception that agility isn’t delivering the results organizations expect. However, it’s time for coaches to evolve beyond the "agile" label and take a more active role in driving strategic business outcomes. Whether coaching on the soccer field, during a crisis, or in the boardroom, the most effective coaches step forward, guide decisively, and take responsibility for results.


Coaching is no longer just about improving team dynamics or collaboration—it’s about aligning the entire organization to achieve measurable business success. For that to happen, coaches need to move from the background to the forefront, blending their skills to lead, consult, and coach in a way that meets the evolving needs of businesses today.


Resources

By Lynn Wolf-Hill July 24, 2025
 A couple of years ago a friend shared an article on how a man made art using artificial intelligence and had an online store. I think his real money came from charging people to learn how to do it. She said,” You could do that!” I wasn’t really sold on the idea but did check out the app she sent my way. It was fun to play with it. I could tweak the prompts and refine how it showed up, long before I knew what a “prompt” was. It had a free trial, and then a monthly price, but as it was in beta, if I gave it a lump sum I could have it for life. And so I did… I used to create images with it every day, but I can’t remember the last time I used it. I can now do the same thing in ChatGPT if I really work hard on the prompts, super specific. I initially paid for the pro version, and now I am using the “plus” option. This allows you to use it as much as you like, and you have access to early releases of functionality. I can think of similar evolution of online tools. There was a race between My Space and Facebook. Before some of the widely used browsers like Google and Safari, there were SO MANY browsers. I like Infoseek and Peoplefinder. Their titles alluded to their differentiation from the competition. And now…? Workplaces got all policy-happy with use of internet at work, and now it’s free out-of-the-box software included with your laptop. So why pay for AI? I very often see these AI-generated advertisements letting me know that old people only use AI like they would Google, and then the ad will go on to list all the AI tools and apps you need to train yourself daily. “Wait, am I being bullied into doing homework? Initially, just as companies have self-contained large learning models, I believed if I paid for my AI, my “projects “or “agents,” were protected. I was writing The A3 Framework: Staying Ahead of the Curve by Combining Agile, AI, and Audit. Related to that activity, I was researching a great deal around international protections in place. (They changed more than once in a short timeframe. I was concerned that things I wrote and submitted could be searched for and found by anybody, making my book obsolete before it was ever published. I really really wish I had searched on the public version for contrast. I did compare different AI tools to contrast what came back. Some were better than others. And now, many organizations are asking employees to use internal AI tools to “teach” the LLM. Several people I have been coaching have provided some feedback on this. Their insight includes frustration with teaching the internal tool when they already had trained their own LLM, and the AI gave them worthless return on their prompts. There’s concern that their ideas can be “stolen,” or what they looked for can be somehow weaponized by HR. So what is your favorite AI platform? I miss my “Ask Jeeves” browser… are we going to continue paying for AI, and are we sure the very things we think need protecting ARE? A couple of years ago, a friend sent me an article about a guy who used artificial intelligence to make art and sell it online. She said, “You could do that!” I wasn’t totally sold on the idea, but I tried out the app she recommended. It was fun—tweaking the inputs and refining what showed up, even before I knew what a “prompt” was. The app had a free trial and a monthly fee, but since it was still in beta, I could pay a lump sum for lifetime access. So I did. I used to generate images every day. Now? I can’t remember the last time I opened it. These things evolve fast. I can now create similar images in ChatGPT—if I get really specific with the prompts. I’ve gone from using the “pro” version to “plus,” which gives me unlimited access and early releases of new tools. It feels like I’m always upgrading, always shifting, but never really arriving. I’ve seen this before. Remember My Space vs. Facebook? Or before Google and Safari took over—there were tons of browsers: I liked Infoseek and PeopleFinder. Their names hinted at their unique flavor. And now? Browsers are just baked into your laptop, part of the default software package. No big deal. So, why pay for AI? Lately I keep seeing ads that say only “old people” use AI like Google. Then the ad flips and starts listing the 12 AI tools I’m apparently supposed to train myself on daily. Wait—am I being bullied into doing homework? When I first started using AI tools to help write The A3 Framework: Staying Ahead of the Curve by Combining Agile, AI, and Audit, I assumed that paying for them meant my data was protected. I believed that my “projects” or “agents” were somehow mine. I was researching a lot of international privacy protocols at the time (which changed more than once during the writing process), and I was genuinely worried that drafts I submitted could be scraped and show up in someone else’s search results before my book was even published. I really wish I had searched on the public version too—just for contrast. I did compare responses across different AI tools. Some were better than others. But I didn’t expect the rapid pace of change to outpace the very protections I was researching. And now, many companies are encouraging employees to “teach” internal AI tools—to help train their organization’s LLMs. Several of the people I’ve coached have shared frustrations with this. Some of them had already spent time training their own personal LLMs to get decent results. Now they’re being asked to start over—often for worse outcomes. There’s also this quiet anxiety around ideas being harvested, someone tracing their searches, will this be used by HR in ways I didn’t agree to? The discomfort is real. We pay for AI tools hoping for privacy, productivity, maybe even a competitive edge—but are we getting that? Or are we just onboarding ourselves into systems we don’t fully understand? So what IS your favorite AI platform? I miss my Ask Jeeves browser. Maybe we’re not just paying for AI—we’re paying for a false sense of control.
October 18, 2024
Why Your VSPMs Aren't Delivering - And How Generative AI Can Fix It!
More Posts