Agile vs Teal: fundamental difference in wide adoption potential

What constitutes the fundamental difference in the wide adoption potential between Agile and Teal?

For me, the main difference is that Agile offers a clear, win-win value proposition, while Teal lacks a compelling business case for corporations.

The What?

Agile provides tangible benefits for both corporations and agile practitioners. Corporations gain shorter time-to-market and higher employee engagement, leading to improved efficiency and a stronger EBITDA. 

Meanwhile, agile practitioners appreciate the emphasis on self-management for knowledge workers—allowing teams to drive their own productivity. This mutual gain is what makes Agile sustainable and valuable in the corporate world.

In contrast, Teal presents a more abstract proposition that goes beyond the conventional, tangible mindset of companies. Its three core breakthroughs—Evolutionary Purpose, Wholeness, and Self-Management—are not typically central to corporate agendas. As a result, Teal lacks a clear, measurable value proposition that organizations can easily adopt. 

The scarcity of concrete examples and proven success stories makes it challenging for executives to see a compelling business case. Most importantly, the question of why it matters remains only vaguely addressed, especially within the time horizons that are relevant to majority of companies.

In practice, I've seen Teal initiatives dismissed in large corporations, absent from executive agendas, and met with skepticism in casual conversations. Teal proponents, often from smaller or family-run businesses, are seen as out of touch with the priorities and agendas of large corporations.

So What?

Can we realistically expect corporations to embrace Teal principles? After all, we created corporations and taught them market economics—not civil economy or the broader role of society. Expecting corporations to transcend market logic is like expecting an AI that hasn’t been trained in math to solve equations.

Corporations follow the logic of growth: they’re structured to maximize profits, not address societal issues. They don’t comprehend the civil economy, the meta-crises we face, or the broader role societies play. This responsibility lies with governments, not corporations. Corporations are built to leverage society for growth, not to address socio-economic inequalities.

Now What?

The shift we need will come from society—not corporate boards. Societies must reassert their role in the socio-economic landscape and redefine the purpose of corporations. Executives serve their shareholders and the profit-driven structure they were taught; true change must be demanded from outside.

If you resonate with this perspective, explore Good Companies Economics on my website or dive into my Good Companies book. It is rooted in the philosophies of @Stefano Zamagni’s Civil Economy, John Vervaeke’s Meaning Crisis, and Frederic Laloux’s Reinventing Organizations.

The updated edition, released last September, includes more visuals and charts.