The Hidden Gap Between Product Teams and Leadership
Agile was a transformative approach for digital delivery in corporations. It was once seen as a revolutionary mindset to delivering better products, faster and more valuable—until it started to be "obsolete". Many now claim that the "old" frameworks don’t work in corporate settings anymore, and advocate for shifting toward new fancy methodologies (promoted also by big consultancy firms, of course). But before we discard any specific Agile framework, we need to reassess what actually went wrong.
A good starting point is examining how we define the value our work delivers.
The Missing Link: Value (Re)Definition in a Corporate Context
From my point of view, agile’s failure wasn’t about frameworks. One reason, besides many others, was the disconnection between money (investment) and work (delivery).
“Value” was supposed to bridge this gap, but in a corporate setting, value is difficult to define, explain, and measure. On top of that, frequent senior leadership changes mean that the definition of value is constantly shifting, making it difficult to maintain alignment. This resulted in considering the work/deliverables as uncontrolled, hard-to-measure, and creating uncertainty in investment outcomes.
Instead of addressing the root cause, corporations are regressing to traditional control mechanisms: stricter processes, rigid definitions, and top-down decisions. When we combine these with the agile processes, the result is a mess.
Nobody understood why the delivery is slowed, despite the constant demand for faster and valuable results (almost nobody). Who would have thought that enforcing more rules, approval gates, and centralized oversight wouldn’t fix the issue? Who would have thought that adding bureaucracy we would hinder the adaptability?
Product Leaders: Are We the Rigid Ones?
As product managers/owners, we often define value based on our own mental frameworks—customer satisfaction, ROI, innovation, efficiency, and whatever else we consider relevant at the beginning. While this is not necessarily wrong, it may not always align with what C-level executives consider valuable at any given moment. I'm not judging now, if they are right or wrong (we all know they are wrong, but that's not the point).
And therein lies a fundamental issue, in my experience: while (good) product teams pride themselves on agility in delivery, they may be rigid when it comes to value definition.
Why does this happen? Cognitive bias plays a role—we tend to stick with what has worked in the past, assuming it will continue to apply. There's also inertia; once a team establishes a way of thinking about a product's value, changing that perception feels like abandoning hard-earned insights. Additionally, there's something else that I do not like to recognize in myself - a deeper fear at play: redefining value might mean acknowledging that past efforts no longer align with corporate strategy, making it feel like our previous work is being devalued. A nice hit on our product owner's pride, ain't it?
With more experience, we tend to default to familiar definitions of success, reinforcing what has worked before rather than questioning if it remains relevant. We see our product’s purpose clearly—but fail to realize leadership sees it differently. It’s not just about adapting to product pivots, urgent needs, or MVPs—it’s about the foundational perception of what makes a product or our work valuable. Recognizing and overcoming these biases is key to bridging the gap between product teams and executive strategy.
Consider a scenario where a new CEO prioritizes M&A expansion and cost reduction. If you’re managing a product in a downsized business line, your previous value definition (growth, innovation) no longer applies. Some might argue that in this case, the product doesn’t need a PO because it isn't important, but that’s not true. The focus just needs to shift.
If we fail to adjust our perception of value in line with corporate strategy, the gap between management and our product teams widens. This misalignment leads to inefficiencies, conflicting priorities, and ultimately, frustration on both sides. We know that the other side is completely wrong and misses the point, but that's not something we debate now.
Agility in delivery means nothing if we’re not agile in value definition.
Concepts like Product Vision and Goals, and many other documents (created or not with AI - we need to be in trend) exist, but they don’t always capture the underlying strategic drivers behind key decisions.
To stay relevant, product managers must continuously reassess and redefine what value means—aligning with both corporate strategy and market needs. That requires not just reacting to changes, but proactively anticipating and adapting what success looks like at any given time.
As my grandfather used to say: true agility isn’t just about how we build products; it’s about how we adapt when we define their impact.
D. Scope