Public sector organizations around the world have to adapt to digital transformation. Scholars have argued that this transformation requires adopting agile approaches and frameworks, like Scrum, Kanban, or Design Thinking. This will help stimulate the necessary culture and mindset change amongst public sector officials, and deliver value to the citizens more efficiently and effectively. However, except for a few prominent examples, the bigger picture of the actual adoption of agile methods in public sector organizations remains blurry. Drawing on public sector innovation and public management literature, I hypothesize that role-related, organisational, and environmental determinants influence the likelihood of agile methods adoption. To test my hypotheses, I analyse the appearance of agile methods-related keywords in over 120k job postings from over 7.7k German public sector organizations with text-as-data and statistical methods. I find that the strongest positive predictors in each of the three categories are a digital-related job profile, an organization belonging to the central government, and an organization being located in a wealthy area. The results suggest that in Germany agile methods are yet to be recognized for their transformational potential and are mostly perceived as a niche toolset with minimal adoption in the broader population of public sector organizations.

Individual and group narratives are argued to influence the implementation and legitimization of innovations in public sector organizations (PSO) (Brown, 1998). This article extends the argument toward the concept of agility in PSOs, which is increasingly being thematized by scholars. Nonetheless, we still lack a consistent conceptualization of agility (Ylinen, 2021). By identifying existing narratives of agility, we aim to strengthen our conceptual understanding of ‘agile government’ building upon McBride and colleagues’ (2022) differentiation of ‘doing’ and ‘being’ agile. We contribute to the discussion on agility ‘as just another management fashion?’ by contextualizing our data within Kieser's (1996) framework on organizational fashions to account for the occurrence of these different narratives.

Consequently, we pose the following research question: Which narratives of agility exist in German PSOs and how can we explain their variances?

To address this question, we apply an employee-centered research approach to explore their construction of agility. Following the widespread understanding of agility as an innovation for PSOs, the individual attitude towards agility conveyed by a narrative implies key information for its further diffusion and adoption potential (De Vries et al., 2018). To moreover account for the diversity of PSO forms, we explore to what extent these constructed narratives of agility differ across the employees’ organizational affiliations. This is congruent with the existing literature on agility emphasizing the multitude of potential applications within PSOs (Mergel et al., 2018, 2021). Particular, the implied ambiguity of the concept is argued to fuel the development of further narratives as employees are thereby enabled to prone the idea of agility to their individual context raising its legitimacy (Sahlin-Andersson & Wedlin, 2008).

This paper explores narratives of agility by conducting a multi-level case study in the German public sector. Data is gathered from a cross-case sample covering all administrative levels in Germany as well as from different organizational types in the public sector. The data consists of semi-structured interviews, semi-standardized online surveys and will be complemented by desk research on agility in the public sector (grey literature, internal publications as well as research literature). Our data will be analyzed following an abductive research approach (Dubois & Gadde, 2002). Firstly, the structured, inductive method promoted by Gioia et al. (2013) will be executed. Secondly, our coded results will be examined through the lens of their orientation towards ‘doing agile’ or ‘being agile’ (McBride et al., 2022) and their affiliation towards certain rhetorical arenas of the discussion (Kieser, 1996).

We expect the existence of distinct narratives of agility in different PSOs depending not exclusively but to a large degree on organizational variables. Consequently, in the absence of an overarching reform stream, the embedded individuals' understanding of agility is expected to shape the embodiment of the concept through the adoption of practices for its diffusion or, conversely, its resistance (Waldorff & Madsen, 2022). Furthermore, these narratives facilitate the decoupling of formal structures as they are used as legitimization to fulfill (external) demands without a transformation of an organization’s activities in general (Meyer & Rowan, 1977).

"Agility" is currently one of the most important buzzwords when it comes to innovation in the public sector. The importance of agile working styles, driven by complex environments and uncertainty, is growing in times of crisis or external shocks as witnessed in the last few years. The concept of agility yields the promise of making public administrations more flexible and responding to change quickly, by enabling collaboration beyond organizational silos, strengthening the ability to learn, and increasing stakeholder involvement. Most agile approaches within the public sector thereby are applied in the context of digital transformation endeavors, yet agile practices have also started to be used in other problem fields of public administrations.

While agile project management and agile methods, such as Kanban or Scrum, already have considerable prevalence in public administration, forms of structural agility, such as Holacracy, are still at an earlier stage of development. We propose a distinction between these different forms of agile management which we believe is an important step towards a better understanding of the phenomenon.

In this paper, we assess the state of agile project management, methodological and structural agility in the public sector in the three countries of Austria, Germany, and Switzerland, which belong to the family of Germanic traditions of public administration. Based on a standardized survey among 500 civil servants, we analyze the use of agile methods and organization. We focus on what triggers the introduction of agile practices in these public administrations. We distinguish three sets of triggers: organizational adaptions (1) due to environments described by the VUCA concept, adaptions (2) due to isomorphism as described by neo-institutionalism, and adaptions (3) due to expected benefits associated with agility. We analyze the relation between these three sets of triggers and the use of methodological and structural agility respectively as well as interactions between the three sets of triggers. Our research thus gives an overview of the use of agility in countries with a Germanic public administration tradition; contributes to a better conceptual clarification of agility in the public sector; and helps to understand why and under which circumstances public administrations use and introduce which agile practices.

Amidst rapid technological advancements, governments are encouraged to embrace digital transformation for efficiency and relevance. The executive branch, particularly focused on automated case handling and streamlined operations, encounters multifaceted challenges extending beyond technical modernization. Drawing from the private sector's seemingly successful adoption of Agile and DevOps practices, the public sector is now exploring these methodologies; yet potentially hindered by bureaucratic structures and hierarchical leadership challenges. Empirical analysis of Agile and DevOps in government remains limited, leading to ambiguity in their definitions, effectiveness, and suitability. This paper investigates practitioner-defined Agile and DevOps practices and their benefits and challenges in the public sector. Through interviews in a Flemish government department, this research reveals tangible benefits accompanied by the understanding that these practices are not universal remedies. The public sector's specific challenges emphasize the need for cautious digital transformation, balancing streamlined processes with democratic values.