Introduction to the special issue ‘Towards a Multi-Level Understanding of Agile in Government: Macro, Meso and Micro Perspectives’

1.Introduction

Over the past twenty years, agile management methods have become standard practice in software development and IT. The ‘agile manifesto’ (Beck et al., 2001) was an important starting point for this development, as it addressed the shortcomings of the previously dominant ‘waterfall’ approach in project management and software development. This agile wave also arrived in public sector practice, mainly aiming for a more responsive, flexible, learning-oriented and collaborative approach to government (Greve et al., 2020; Mergel et al., 2018).

Traditional approaches to planning and project management focus on standardized processes and rely on the assumption that requirements will not change during planning and development of a product or service, allowing for a sequential approach in which development is only started after planning is completed (Simonofski et al., 2018). However, in reality, the political, societal and economic environment tends to evolve, meaning that requirements also change over time, leading to results that are already outdated by the time they are released and used. Thus, the waterfall approach can lead to catastrophic project failures, dysfunctional processes and economic waste (Mergel et al., 2021). Agile, in contrast, adopts a more flexible approach and uses less detailed planning, reflective learning, shorter development cycles, intensive collaboration, and continuous testing with clients that allows for fixes to be implemented before a product or service is released (Beck et al., 2001; Mergel, 2016).

The notion of ‘agile government’ goes beyond software design and IT, meaning that agile practices can also be used in other types of projects and their management, process redesign, and to solve other complex challenges (Mergel et al., 2018). This development is illustrated by the increasing number of government organizations that have begun to adopt principles, practices, and tools subsumed under the term ‘agile’.

However, although we observe an increasing use of agile methods in governmental practice, the literature analysing determinants and impacts of agile government and related theoretical reflections is still developing. Perhaps most pressingly, the term agile is often only poorly defined and conceptualized or used only as a buzzword in what could be described as faux-agile approaches (Mergel, 2023). McBride et al. (2022) even argue that “while agility can represent a useful paradigm in some contexts, it is often applied inappropriately in the governmental context due to a lack of understanding about what ‘agile’ is, and what it is not” (p. 21). Moreover, certain practitioners and scholars suspect that agile may be just another management fad, and only more empirical research can unveil whether it is substantially different and more sustainable and successful than previous approaches.

Therefore, the aims of this special issue are twofold. First, it sets out to strengthen the conceptual and theoretical foundations for future research on agile government. This is done both in the articles in this special issue as well as in this introductory article in which we present an extensive discussion of different definitions of agile and develop a multi-level framework to integrate these differing understandings by conceptualizing agile government on different analytical levels (macro, meso and micro). With that, we heed the calls for further theorisation about differences between engaging in agile practices on an individual level and within an organization and the organization being an agile entity in itself (Baxter et al., 2023; McBride et al., 2022). Second, this special issue strives to add empirical evidence and practical implications to help with the implementation of agile in the public sector. This is mostly done in the six research articles within this special issue.

The remainder of this article is structured as follows. In the next section, we discuss the conceptual boundaries and various definitions of agile. In section three, we highlight the specificities of agile government on the macro, meso, and micro levels. Lastly, we introduce the research articles of this special issue and draw some conclusions on future research.

2.Towards conceptual clarity

Clearly defining the boundaries of a concept is of key importance for a field of research to make progress (Goertz, 2020). Thereby, good concept formation should consider eight factors: familiarity, resonance, parsimony, coherence, differentiation, depth, theoretical utility, and field utility (Gerring, 1999). Thus, answering the question of ‘what is agile’ is crucial also for the evolving body of literature on agile government as well as for this special issue, which is why we start this introductory article with a discussion of the ontology of agile in the public sector context. Developing clear definitions also helps to overcome the status of a buzzword, that some authors share about the concept of agile government (Madsen, 2020). While the term “agile government” may sometimes be used as a buzzword or to signal development and innovation, e.g. by consultants but also public agencies themselves, the principles and practices it encompasses have real-world applications and may lead to tangible improvements in government effectiveness and citizen satisfaction. While agile is clearly a management fashion (as also reflected by Kühler et al. in this special issue), this does not mean that agile government is a concept without substance. This chapter therefore discusses the substance and quality of definitions of agile government.

Broadly speaking, agile in government can be understood as a dynamic and adaptive approach to governance that draws inspiration from the principles of agile methodologies commonly employed in software development. It is characterized by flexibility, responsiveness, and a collaborative mindset that allows for swift adjustments to changing circumstances (Li et al., 2023; Mergel et al., 2018). Agile is sometimes viewed as a central element of digital government (Fishenden & Thompson, 2013) and of the broader concept of adaptive governance (Janssen & van der Voort, 2016; Soe & Drechsler, 2018). In the public sector literature, there is often a very close alignment between digital transformation and agile: “ICT adds public value via agile methods” (Soe & Drechsler, 2018).

If we go back to the agile manifesto for software development, there are four core values that guide the agile approach: individuals and interactions are prioritized over processes and tools, functioning software over comprehensive documentation, customer collaboration over contract negotiation, and, perhaps most importantly, responding to change over following a plan (Beck et al., 2001). Based on this, there are twelve principles derived from the abovementioned values in the agile manifesto, touching upon aspects such as customer centricity, continuous delivery of software, openness to changing requirements, collaboration between business and IT, assigning motivated employees to the project, and trusting them, extensive communication, and simplicity, self-organization, and self-reflective learning (Beck et al., 2001). Both the values and principles in the agile manifesto are universal enough to be applied to contexts other than software development, such as developing new public services or solutions to public problems. However, while the agile manifesto does help to better understand what agile is about (and not about), it does not constitute an academic definition of agile.

In the field of information systems, multiple definitions of agile have subsequently been developed, including “the software team’s capability to efficiently and effectively respond to and incorporate user requirement changes during the project life cycle” (Lee & Xia, 2010, p. 90), “to rapidly or inherently create change, proactively or reactively embrace change, and learn from change while contributing to perceived customer value (economy, quality, and simplicity), through its collective components and relationships with its environment” (Conboy, 2009, p. 340), and “both the ability to adapt to different changes and to refine and fine-tune development processes as needed” (Dingsøyr et al., 2012, p. 1214; based on Henderson-Sellers & Serour, 2005).

Focusing on the public sector, Mergel et al. (2021, p. 1) picked up on the central notion of the manifesto that agile is about responding and adapting to change, providing a government-specific definition of agile: “responding to changing public needs in an efficient way” (2021, p. 1). With this elegant and short definition, these authors highlight that agile could be a promising approach for many public organizations in times of rising citizen expectations and problem complexity. It constitutes a definition at the macro level, focusing on addressing public or societal needs. However, while this definition satisfies the criteria of familiarity, resonance, and parsimony, it is less clear about coherence, differentiation to similar concepts such as adaptive governance, depth, as well as theoretical and field utility (Gerring, 1999).

Even more recently, two more refined definitions of agile that specifically consider the public sector context were put forward. Mergel (2023, p. 1) argues that “agile refers to a work management ideology with a set of productivity frameworks that support continuous and iterative progress on work tasks by reviewing one’s hypotheses, working in a human-centric way, and encouraging evidence-based learning”. This definition is focused on the meso-level, describing key changes that agile introduces to the inner workings of an organization, and centred on processes. While this definition is less parsimonious than the previous definition, it does well on the other criteria proposed by Gerring (1999), particularly on depth, differentiation, coherence, and field utility.

In contrast, Neumann et al. (2024, p. 17) define agile as “a form of governance innovation consisting of organization-specific mixes of cultural, structural, and procedural adaptations geared towards making public organizations more flexible in changing environments, ultimately pursuing the goal of increasing efficiency, effectiveness, and user satisfaction”. As such, this definition focuses more on the macro level, mentioning implications of agile that go beyond the organizational boundaries and that are relevant to external stakeholder groups. More specifically, it centres on the intended outcomes of agile in government and highlights that agile challenges existing governance modes in public organizations. Similarly to the last definition, it is not particularly parsimonious, but it has its strengths in the areas of familiarity, depth, coherence, and theoretical utility.

In conclusion, we believe that both of the most recent definitions have their merit and contribute to delimiting the conceptual space of agile in government, which should enhance conceptual coherence both in future research and in practice. However, they only cover the macro and meso levels of agile, whereas a micro-level definition is so far missing. This may be explained by the focus of agile on organizational productivity and adaptability vis-à-vis external changes, whereas agile is not something that can exist purely at the micro-level (e.g., done just by an individual) – although it certainly may have effects on it and be also determined by micro-level factors. However, this diversity in definitions already shows the need to relate definitions of agile on different levels with each other and to be more explicit about their connections.

3.Macro, meso, micro – agile government on different levels of analysis

So far agile government has mainly been studied and conceptualized from a macro (e.g. Greve et al., 2020) and meso (e.g. Atobishi et al., 2024; Walsh et al., 2002) level perspective, which follows the idea of agile government as a procedural and project management approach (meso) relying on environmental influences and more transformative changes in the public sector (macro). However, agile government is also affected by micro-level determinants and comes with micro-level implications pointing to individual agile practices as well as individual attitudes and motivation regarding agile processes and structures as well as the role of leaders (e.g. Lediju, 2016). Dwi Harfianto et al. (2022) show that well in a recent systematic literature review, where they cluster challenges of agile transformations in bureaucratic organizations into the environmental context (macro, e.g. governmental regulations), the organizational context (meso, e.g., internal policies and organizational structure), the individual context (micro, e.g., individual competence or interpersonal conflict) and the technology context (covering multiple levels of analysis, depending on whether the focus is on organizational infrastructure, general policies for documentation or development activities). Similarly, McBride et al. (2022) point out that the discussion about agile governance (macro) often overlooks the relationship of general agile government with organizational structure and stability (meso) and inherently contradicting public values (innovation and flexibility vs. long-term stable provision of public goods, predictability, equity) and related agile practices (micro).

The following section first describes the notion of agile on these different analytical levels and develops a conceptual framework of agile government that shows the interdependence between these levels. Agile is sometimes coined as “old wine in new bottles” (Kühl, 2023; McBride et al., 2022) and indeed the core ideas all trace back to classic organization and management theories. To underline these traces, we also point to the theoretical and conceptual heritage that agile government builds upon for each analytical level, we also point to the theoretical and conceptual heritage that agile government builds upon. The articles belonging to this special issue are then positioned within this framework, showing that none of them clearly just analyses one of these levels, but that they are all positioned at the crossroads between different analytical levels or even touching all of them.

When agile government is defined as a multi-level concept, it is not only important to separate these analytical levels and to analyse what agile government means from these different perspectives, but to also focus on the interdependence and reciprocal influences between macro, meso, and micro levels in agile government. With that, we bring Mergel et al.’s (2018) idea of a holistic approach to agile government across different organizational levels to the next level, by not only having an organizational holistic perspective but also in terms of analytical levels and respective focus points in research. In that we also follow advice by Jilke et al. (2019) and Roberts (2018) to reflect more explicit on levels of analysis used in empirical public administration studies and to reflect on multi-level implications.

As agile management evolved from a focus on software development and technology, also the practical implementation in government is often connected to technology and digital change (see e.g., Dittrich et al. (2005) on Denmark, Mantovani Fontana and Marczak (2020) on Brazil, Li et al. (2023) on China, Mergel (2019) on several digital service teams worldwide). The articles that are part of this special issue underline that. For example, (Kühler et al.) find that narratives related to agile government are inherently linked to digital organizations and new work. Yadav analyses a public sector organization dealing with overall digital change. Hegele and Stoll find that what they define as “doing agile” is often related to a position in the IT department of a public organization and what they define as “being agile” goes together with the introduction of digital change in general. Hence, we also model technology to serve as a linchpin in the multi-level agile government framework, driving transformative changes in governance structures, decision-making processes, and citizen engagement strategies.

3.3Micro level: Individual and team agility

At the micro level, the concept of agile goes back to psychological theories analysing individual and group behaviour and human resource management and focusing on individual flexibility, collaboration or learning behaviours (e.g., going back to Simon (1997), but also covering motivation and leadership theories, such as self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2008), or change leadership (Gill, 2002). Individual and team agility centres on the behaviours, attitudes, and skills of frontline workers. It considers factors such as leadership styles, employee empowerment, and the cultivation of a culture of innovation at the individual and team levels. This level explores how micro-level agility contributes to the overall adaptive capacity of government organizations. On the micro level, technology facilitates data-driven decision-making, empowers individual and team agility through innovative software solutions, and engages citizens through online platforms, social media, and open data initiatives (Junjan et al., forthcoming).

Fangmann et al. (2020) study agile government from the perspective of agile teams, meaning that these are strong communicators, open to change, develop in iterations, work in a product-driven and improvement-oriented way, and the organization and processes are team-centred. Hence, the focal point here is an optimal team behaviour to achieve agile on a higher level. From a different angle, Patanakul and Rufo-McCarron (2018) analyse agile software development in a governmental program and find primarily micro-level challenges to a successful implementation, such as resistance to change, missing knowledge and skills but also missing training and accessibility to experts, as well as a lack of commitment and ownership for the analysed projects. All these challenges point to classic change management and human resource management implications, such as the need for participation and communication in the implementation of agile, change agents or champions, mentoring and training programs. Similarly, Simonofski et al. (2018) find in focus group interviews with Belgian IT professionals in the local and regional government, that competences of the personnel, their motivation and ability to communicate are key to implement an agile e-government.

Mergel’s (2023) focus on agile as social practice adds another nuance here, namely that while showing public employees the value of agile practices they will adapt accordingly, managers feel threatened in their self-efficacy and status by work practices contesting hierarchy and top-down leadership. This shows that micro-level factors determine the adoption of agile practices on the individual and team-level and in that influence whether agile procedures and structures on the meso-level are enacted or remain paper tigers. Vice versa, if no or insufficient opportunities are given to work in an agile way, be it hindering regulations or culture (macro) or organizational processes or structures (meso), individuals will get demotivated to act in such a way and potentially resist related change projects.

All in all, at the micro level, agile government focuses on day-to-day operations and decision-making processes of individual public servants (Drury et al., 2011; Mergel, 2023). It involves a departure from traditional bureaucratic rigidity towards a more flexible, adaptive, and trustful collaborative work environment (Berger, 2007; Ylinen, 2021). Micro-level agile government requires discretion of frontline workers, encouraging them to make decisions autonomously, respond quickly to emerging challenges, and engage in continuous learning (Thomann et al., 2018). This approach is characterized by iterative problem-solving, allowing individuals to experiment with innovative solutions, receive immediate feedback, and adjust their approaches accordingly. At the micro level, agile government requires a cultural shift towards openness to change, a willingness to embrace uncertainty, and the cultivation of a learning mindset among individual employees (Mergel, 2023). The emphasis on the agency of frontline workers, their openness for uncertainty, failure and learning, shows the inherent interdependence between agile practices on the micro-level and meso-level factors of organizational culture.

Articles that are part of this special issue all analyse individual agile practices but take different angles to do so. While Kühler et al. focus on narratives that public managers and employees create about agile government in order to make sense of the concept, Yadav focuses on their evolving roles in the line hierarchy and agile teams and their related behaviour. In contrast, Albrecht focuses on employees and the competences they need to work in agile government (see also Fig. 1).

Figure 1.

Multi-level model of agile in government and the articles in this special issue.

4.Introducing the articles in this special issue

This introductory article maps definitions of agile government and discusses agile government on multiple analytical levels. We started with a discussion on defining ‘agile’ in the context of the public sector. These definitions highlight different aspects and levels of agile, from its organizational processes to its broader implications for governance modes and outcomes.

We translated these different angles of agile government into a multi-level model incorporating: (1) institutional agility on the macro level, emphasizing a dynamic, responsive framework that seeks to adapt swiftly to societal needs through collaboration, technology integration, and innovative policy-making processes and highlighting the importance of environmental influences. (2) Organizational agility on the meso level, focusing on the internal dynamics of government entities and how they adapt structures and procedures to embrace agile principles. (3) Individual and team agility on the micro level, focusing on individual and team behaviours, attitudes, and skills within government organizations.

The articles included in this special issue are all positioned within this multi-level framework (see Fig. 1) and it gets clear that they are all situated at the boundary of multiple levels, making it hardly possible to define and research agile government just on one analytical level. The incorporated articles emphasize the need for agility in government, the challenges of integration with existing hierarchical structures, the importance of leadership, the role of competences and learning, and the interpretation of agile practices within bureaucratic contexts. The articles provide insights into the outcomes, drivers, and barriers of agile adoption within the public sector. Through diverse methodologies (e.g., case studies, standardized surveys, interviews) and perspectives, these articles contribute to a nuanced understanding of the complexities surrounding agile government initiatives.

Hegele and Stoll investigate the growing adoption of agile methodologies within the public sector, aiming to clarify the driving forces behind this transition. The research underscores the significance of political and managerial leadership as well as continuous stakeholder consideration in fostering agility within government entities.

Bonomi Savignon and Costumato advocate for the integration of project management principles within the established field of public strategic management to enhance agility within traditional strategic frameworks. The study identifies five organizational drivers conducive to fostering an agile approach in public strategy implementation.

Yadav explores the challenge of implementing agile principles and practices in public service organizations, particularly in the context of maintaining accountability in the face of simultaneous and parallel maintenance of agile and hierarchical structures/units. They highlight the tension between the desire for agile practices and the persistence of defaulting back to hierarchical models.

Kühler et al. address the need for a deeper understanding of how agile practices are perceived and integrated within government structures. Importantly, the research reveals that agile, perceived as a management fashion, serves as a canvas for projecting desires for modern and digitalized organizations.

Albrecht delves into the integration of agile practices within public sector organizations, especially by using collaborative approaches and informal learning with external stakeholders. She emphasizes the necessity for public servants to acquire a new set of competences to effectively transition these organizations into agile entities.

Neumann et al. address the gap of understanding the outcomes of introducing agile practices within the public sector, which has been extensively explored in the context of private sector organizations. They find individual-level benefits, such as employee well-being, as well as organizational-level improvements, such as cross-functional collaboration.

The special issue is complemented by Gonin’s review of the book “Agile Government: Emerging Perspectives in Public Management”, edited by Melodena Stephens, Raed Awamleh and Fadi Salem from 2022.

5.Conclusion and agenda for future research

Agile in government is conceptualized as a dynamic and adaptive approach, resonating with principles from software development and digital governance initiatives. Various definitions of agile in the public sector range from a focus on responding to changing public needs to its emphasis on work management ideologies and governance innovations. Our multi-level concept of agile government underlines the need for more multi-level research in this emerging field to better understand how these levels interact with one another and what configurations of factors determine success of agile government. The articles in this special serve as a starting point in filling this gap by analysing agile government from diverse perspectives. However, we still see the urgent need that future research further develops in this approach, by systematically combining all three analytical levels.

Furthermore, many studies – also in this special issue – focus on the understanding and definition of agile government, its determinants as well as implementation in governmental practice. While studies from the private sector find empirical evidence that agile practices can lead to a variety of positive outcomes for both individual employees and organizations, such as increased job satisfaction (Tripp et al., 2016), project success (Serrador & Pinto, 2015), and higher performance (Tripp & Armstrong, 2018) research on the (more long-term) impact of agile government still remains scarce. Apart from identifying best practices and success factors for implementing agile government initiatives, examining challenges and barriers to adoption, exploring the role of leadership and organizational culture in supporting agile transformations, the assessment of scalability beyond pilot projects on long-term sustainable and impactful implementation of agile government are key. Here, longitudinal case studies are suited to offer needed insights. Such advancements in research on agile in government could also contribute further to answering the question if agile is more than just a fad. While this will take more efforts and time, we believe it is important to also take a comparative perspective and analyse if a pattern of coherent agile initiatives emerges internationally, and how beneficial and robust their outcomes are across cases.

Moreover, there may be unintended negative side effects when introducing agile in public services – possible dark sides at the individual and/or organizational level – that are so far unknown. For instance, employees may feel overwhelmed, incompetent or insecure as a consequence of this new approach to working, and transparency or accountability issues may arise at an organizational level. When agile government implementation is to be scaled up in the coming years, investigating the potential risks and unintended consequences associated with agile government are key. Here, experimental studies simulating the implementation of agile methods and processes as well as the close and critical analysis of pilot cases might bring the field further. We hope that this special issue serves as a basis and inspires further research on agile government.