Following on from last week’s post Why Enterprises and Legacy Organizations Struggle with the Spotify Model.
Over the years, Spotify’s approach to agility has captured the imagination of organizations worldwide. The promise of empowered, autonomous teams delivering value quickly and consistently is irresistible. Yet, many enterprises, particularly those with long histories (like a 300-year-old UK-based bank that’s endeavoring to “rollout” the Spotify model), find themselves struggling—or outright failing—to adopt the Spotify model.
Many organizations adopt Spotify’s names—Squads, Tribes, Chapters—without the foundational principles that make them effective. They focus on structure rather than outcomes, leading to frustration and failure. What works for Spotify doesn’t necessarily work for any other enterprise with a different culture, scale, and mission.
A Better Approach: Learn, Don’t Copy
Rather than mimicking Spotify’s model, enterprises should focus on its principles and adapt them to their context. Here’s how:
1. Foster a Culture of Autonomy and Alignment
Empower teams with the freedom to decide how to deliver value, while providing clear goals and guardrails. Use mechanisms like OKRs (Objectives and Key Results) to balance autonomy with alignment.
2. Address Technical Foundations
Modernize legacy systems, reduce technical debt, and embrace DevOps practices. This is critical for enabling the speed and flexibility that Spotify’s model thrives on.
3. Start with Incremental Change
Avoid “big bang” transformations. Experiment with Spotify-inspired practices in a single area—like a digital transformation project or innovation lab. Measure results, refine the approach, and scale based on success.
4. Tailor Structures to Context
Instead of blindly adopting Squads and Tribes, design cross-functional teams aligned to customer journeys or key value streams. Avoid overcomplicating structures; simplicity often delivers better results.
5. Embrace Agile Leadership
Train leaders to support autonomy through coaching and empowerment rather than controlling every decision. Build psychological safety to encourage experimentation and learning from failure.
6. Balance Governance and Agility
Regulated industries like banking need lightweight governance models to ensure compliance without stifling innovation. Frameworks like Lean Portfolio Management can align strategic goals with agile execution.
Case Study: A 300-Year-Old Bank
I’ve come across a legacy bank looking to embrace agility (the bank will remain nameless, to protect the innocent).
To the executive team, the Spotify model might seem like an incredibly attractive solution. Especially, when their Big-4 consultancy is advising them to go down this route.
I previously worked for a 500-year old organization seeking to do something similar. It didn’t work.
Question, would direct adoption of the Spotify model likely fail for the reasons outlined in my earlier post?
Answer, almost certainly. But it will take some time to realize the inevitable outcome.
Instead, the bank could:
- Focus on reducing dependencies between teams.
- Modernize its architecture to enable faster delivery.
- Pilot autonomy in digital-first teams before scaling across the organization.
- Use Lean and Agile principles to reduce silos and deliver customer value incrementally.
By tailoring the approach to its unique context and constraints, the bank can achieve agility without trying to “be Spotify.”
The Takeaway
The Spotify model isn’t a silver bullet. It’s an inspiration, not a prescription.
For enterprises—especially those with legacy systems, regulatory constraints, and hierarchical cultures—the goal should be to apply the principles behind Spotify’s success rather than copying its structure.
Agility isn’t about being Spotify; it’s about becoming the best version of your organization—empowered, adaptable, and aligned to deliver value in a changing world.
If you’ve faced challenges implementing Spotify’s model or are exploring agility in your organization, I’d love to hear your experiences in the comments!
Leave a Reply