Starting With Outcomes: A Better Way to Drive Organizational Change

Before we dive in, I want to let you know that this episode is entirely AI-generated, including the voices you're hearing. Today's episode is brought to you by FlowSync, the productivity app that automatically schedules your deep work blocks around your energy levels.

I'm Sarah, and today I'm talking with Mike Burrows about his book Agendashift: Outcome-Oriented Change and Continuous Transformation. Mike, you've been working in organizational change for decades, but this book takes a very different approach than most change management frameworks. What made you write it?

Well Sarah, I was frustrated watching organizations fail at change over and over again. They'd bring in consultants, implement new processes, and nothing would stick. The problem wasn't execution - it was that they were solving the wrong problems entirely.

What do you mean by solving the wrong problems?

Most change efforts start with someone deciding what the solution should be. Maybe it's Agile, or Six Sigma, or some new software. Then they try to force that solution into the organization. But they never asked what outcomes people actually wanted to achieve.

So instead of starting with solutions, you start with outcomes. That sounds simple, but I imagine it's harder than it looks.

Exactly. It requires completely flipping how we think about change. Instead of asking 'how do we implement this methodology,' we ask 'what are we trying to accomplish, and what's preventing us from getting there?'

You call this approach Agendashift. Can you walk me through what that term means?

Agendashift means shifting the agenda from solutions to outcomes. It's about discovering what people really want to achieve, then working backward to find the right interventions. The agenda becomes about the destination, not the journey.

And this came out of your experience with Agile transformations specifically?

Yes, I watched countless Agile implementations fail because teams were told to do standups and sprints without understanding why. They were going through the motions without connecting it to what they actually wanted to accomplish.

What's your background that led you to this insight?

I've been working in software development and organizational change for over twenty years. I was deeply involved in the early Agile community, but I kept seeing this pattern where the methods became more important than the results.

So you developed Agendashift as an alternative. What makes it different from traditional change management?

Traditional change management assumes someone knows what needs to change and just needs to manage resistance. Agendashift assumes the people doing the work are the best source of insight about what needs to improve.

That's a fundamental shift in who has the expertise. Let's dig into your core thesis. What's the central argument of the book?

The core argument is that sustainable change happens when you start with outcomes that matter to people, then discover obstacles together, then experiment with small interventions. It's outcome-oriented, collaborative, and experimental.

You emphasize that this needs to be continuous. Why can't organizations just do a big transformation project and be done?

Because the world keeps changing. Customer needs evolve, technology advances, people come and go. If you're not continuously adapting, you're falling behind. Transformation isn't a project - it's a capability.

That's a big mindset shift. What evidence do you have that this approach actually works better?

I've seen it work in organizations from small startups to large enterprises. When people connect their daily work to outcomes they care about, engagement goes up and results improve. But more importantly, the changes stick because people own them.

What's the intellectual history behind this thinking? Who influenced your approach?

I drew heavily from Lean thinking, particularly the Toyota Production System's focus on continuous improvement. Also from complexity theory - the idea that you can't predict how complex systems will respond to interventions.

And how does this connect to the broader Agile movement?

Agile was revolutionary in focusing on working software over documentation, individuals over processes. But many Agile transformations got stuck on the processes again. I'm trying to get back to the original spirit - outcomes over outputs.

You mention that traditional change management assumes resistance is the problem. What do you think resistance actually represents?

Resistance is often wisdom in disguise. When people resist a change, they might be seeing problems that the change agents missed. Instead of overcoming resistance, we should listen to it and learn from it.

That's a completely different way to think about pushback. How does this connect to your emphasis on starting with outcomes?

When you start with outcomes people actually want to achieve, resistance often disappears. People aren't resisting change - they're resisting irrelevant or harmful change. Find the right outcomes and you'll find willing partners.

Let's get into the practical methods. What's the first tool or framework you introduce in the book?

The foundational tool is the outcome-based agenda. Instead of starting a meeting with 'here's what we're going to implement,' you start with 'here's what we want to achieve.' It sounds simple but it changes everything.

Can you give me a concrete example of how this plays out?

Sure. I worked with a team that was told to implement continuous deployment. Instead of starting there, we asked what they wanted to achieve. They said faster customer feedback and fewer production bugs. That led to very different experiments.

What experiments did they try?

They started with shorter development cycles and better testing practices. Continuous deployment came later, once they had the foundation. Because they understood the why, they implemented it much more thoughtfully.

So the same solution, but approached differently. What's the next major framework you introduce?

The obstacle exploration workshop. This is where teams identify what's preventing them from achieving their outcomes. It's collaborative and visual - people put sticky notes on a wall showing all the barriers they see.

How is this different from a typical brainstorming session about problems?

It's structured around specific outcomes, so you're not just listing random problems. And it's designed to surface the systemic obstacles that teams usually don't talk about - like conflicting priorities from management or broken incentive structures.

Can you walk me through a real example of how this workshop unfolds?

I did this with a marketing team that wanted to reduce campaign launch times. They identified obstacles like lengthy approval processes, unclear requirements, and competing deadlines. But the real insight was that different stakeholders had different definitions of 'done.'

That's interesting - a communication problem masquerading as a process problem. How do you help teams prioritize which obstacles to tackle first?

We use dot voting and impact mapping. Teams vote on which obstacles have the biggest impact on their outcomes, and which ones they have the most control over. You want to start with high impact, high control obstacles.

That makes sense - quick wins that matter. What's the next step after identifying obstacles?

Experiment design. Instead of big solution implementations, teams design small experiments to address specific obstacles. The key is making them reversible and time-boxed - usually one to four weeks.

How do you structure these experiments so they actually produce learning?

Each experiment has a clear hypothesis - if we try this intervention, we expect this outcome because of this reasoning. Then we define what success looks like and how we'll measure it. Most importantly, we decide upfront what we'll do with the results.

Can you give me an example of a well-designed experiment?

That marketing team hypothesized that daily check-ins would reduce campaign delays by catching issues earlier. They tried fifteen-minute standup meetings for two weeks and measured how many campaigns hit their deadlines. They also tracked what issues were discovered.

What happened with that experiment?

It worked, but not for the reasons they expected. The standups didn't catch more issues, but they forced people to be clearer about what they were working on. That clarity reduced downstream confusion and rework.

That's a great example of how experiments teach you things you couldn't predict. How do you help teams learn from failed experiments?

Failure is data, not judgment. When an experiment doesn't work, we ask what we learned about the obstacle, the intervention, or our assumptions. Sometimes a failed experiment teaches you more than a successful one.

You also talk about something called 'clean language' in the book. What's that about?

Clean language is a questioning technique that helps people explore their own thinking without imposing your assumptions. Instead of leading questions, you use neutral phrases like 'what kind of' or 'is there anything else about' to help people discover their own insights.

How does this apply to organizational change work?

When you're trying to understand what outcomes people want, or what obstacles they're facing, clean language helps you avoid projecting your own solutions onto their situation. You get more accurate information and people feel more heard.

Can you show me the difference between a leading question and a clean language question?

A leading question might be 'Don't you think better communication would solve this problem?' A clean language version would be 'What needs to happen for this problem to be resolved?' The second version doesn't assume the solution.

That's subtle but important. Another framework you discuss is 'right-to-left thinking.' What does that mean?

Right-to-left means starting with the desired outcome and working backward to identify what needs to happen. Most people think left-to-right - here's what we'll do, and hopefully good things will result. Right-to-left is much more purposeful.

How do you teach teams to think this way when it's so counterintuitive?

I use visual mapping exercises. Teams write their desired outcome on the right side of a whiteboard, then work backward asking 'what needs to be true for this to happen?' You keep going until you get to actionable next steps.

Does this connect to your emphasis on 'pull' versus 'push' approaches to change?

Exactly. Push approaches force solutions onto people. Pull approaches create outcomes that people want to move toward. When you're clear about the destination, people will figure out how to get there.

Let's talk about implementation. How would someone start using these ideas in their organization?

Start small and start with willing participants. Find a team that has a clear outcome they want to achieve and offer to facilitate an obstacle exploration workshop. Don't try to change the whole organization at once.

What if you're not in a position of authority? Can individual contributors use these approaches?

Absolutely. You can use outcome-oriented thinking in any meeting or project. Instead of jumping to solutions, ask 'what are we trying to achieve here?' and 'what's preventing us from getting there?' Even asking those questions changes the conversation.

What about someone who is in a leadership position? How should they approach implementing Agendashift?

Leaders need to model the behavior. Stop mandating solutions and start asking about outcomes. When someone brings you a problem, ask what success would look like before you start problem-solving. Create space for experimentation.

Can you walk me through a step-by-step process for a leader who wants to try this with their team?

First, gather your team and ask what outcomes they want to achieve in the next quarter. Be specific - not 'work better' but 'reduce customer response time to under 24 hours.' Write these outcomes down where everyone can see them.

What's the second step?

Run an obstacle exploration workshop. Ask what's preventing the team from achieving those outcomes. Use sticky notes so everyone can contribute. Don't try to solve anything yet - just capture all the obstacles people see.

Then what?

Prioritize the obstacles using dot voting. Each person gets three dots to vote on which obstacles have the biggest impact. Then discuss which ones the team has the most control over. You want to start with high impact, high control obstacles.

And then you design experiments to address those obstacles?

Right. For the top two or three obstacles, design small experiments. Each one should have a clear hypothesis, a way to measure success, and a time limit of one to four weeks. Make sure they're reversible if they don't work.

How often should teams review and adjust their experiments?

I recommend weekly check-ins to see how experiments are going, and monthly retrospectives to decide what to try next. The key is maintaining momentum while giving experiments enough time to produce learning.

What are the most common mistakes people make when they first try this approach?

The biggest mistake is starting with outcomes that are too vague. 'Improve team collaboration' isn't specific enough. You need outcomes you can measure, like 'reduce the time between code complete and deployment by 50 percent.'

What other mistakes do you see?

People design experiments that are too big or too permanent. They're still thinking like traditional change projects. Good experiments are small, reversible, and time-boxed. If you can't undo it easily, it's not an experiment.

How long does it typically take to see results from this approach?

You should see engagement improvements immediately - people respond well to being asked about outcomes they care about. Measurable business results usually take two to three months, depending on what you're trying to achieve.

What about in larger organizations with more complex politics and processes?

It takes longer, but the principles are the same. You might need to align outcomes across multiple levels of the organization. And you'll need to design experiments that work within existing constraints while still producing learning.

How do you adapt the approach for different organizational cultures?

The key is meeting people where they are. In very hierarchical cultures, you might need senior leader buy-in before teams will experiment. In consensus-driven cultures, you'll spend more time aligning on outcomes. But the core process works everywhere.

Are there situations where this approach doesn't work well?

It struggles in genuine crisis situations where you need immediate action. It also doesn't work if senior leadership is committed to a specific solution regardless of outcomes. You need some openness to different approaches.

What about highly regulated industries where experimentation might be constrained?

You can still experiment, but within compliance boundaries. The experiments might be more about process improvements or team dynamics rather than customer-facing changes. The outcome focus is still valuable even if the intervention options are limited.

If someone could only implement one thing from your book, what should it be?

Start every meeting or project by getting clear on outcomes. Before you discuss solutions, make sure everyone agrees on what success looks like. That one change will improve almost everything else you do.

Let's talk about the book's strengths and limitations. What do you think the book does brilliantly?

I think it provides a practical alternative to traditional change management that actually respects people's intelligence and experience. The tools are simple enough to use immediately but sophisticated enough to handle complex organizational problems.

Where do you think the book might overpromise or underdeliver?

I probably underestimate how hard it is for leaders to give up control over solutions. The approach requires a level of trust and patience that many organizations struggle with. It's not as easy as I sometimes make it sound.

How does your approach compare to other change frameworks like Kotter's 8-step process or Lean Change Management?

Kotter's process is very top-down and assumes leaders know what needs to change. Lean Change Management is closer to what I'm advocating - it's experimental and feedback-driven. But I put more emphasis on starting with outcomes that matter to the people doing the work.

What about compared to design thinking or human-centered design approaches?

There's a lot of overlap, especially the emphasis on understanding user needs before designing solutions. The difference is that I'm focused specifically on organizational change rather than product design. But the underlying philosophy is similar.

What does the book leave out that readers should look for elsewhere?

I don't spend much time on the technical aspects of specific methodologies like Scrum or Kanban. If you want to implement those, you'll need additional resources. I also don't cover large-scale organizational restructuring - that's a different challenge.

Are there other books you'd recommend that complement this one?

Switch by Chip and Dan Heath is excellent on the psychology of change. The Lean Startup by Eric Ries has great material on experimentation and validated learning. And Reinventing Organizations by Frederic Laloux covers more radical organizational transformation.

What criticism has the book received over the years?

Some people say it's too idealistic - that most organizations aren't ready for this kind of collaborative approach. Others want more detailed case studies and metrics. I think both criticisms have some validity.

How has the field of organizational change evolved since you wrote the book?

There's been more acceptance of experimental and iterative approaches to change. The pandemic forced a lot of organizations to be more adaptive. I see more leaders talking about outcomes rather than just implementing methodologies.

Has remote work changed how these ideas apply?

Remote work actually makes outcome focus more important because you can't manage by walking around anymore. Teams need clearer shared outcomes to coordinate effectively. The tools work well in virtual settings too.

What would you change if you were writing the book today?

I'd spend more time on the leadership mindset shifts required. It's not just about learning new tools - it's about fundamentally changing how you think about your role as a change agent. That's harder than I initially appreciated.

Looking back, what's been the most surprising way people have applied your ideas?

I've seen teams use the obstacle exploration workshop for everything from improving family dynamics to planning community events. The principles work beyond organizational change - anytime you want to achieve something collaboratively.

As we wrap up, what's the single most important insight you want listeners to take from this conversation?

Stop starting with solutions. Whether you're leading a team, running a project, or trying to solve any problem, begin by getting crystal clear on what outcomes you're trying to achieve. That simple shift changes everything.

And for someone who's inspired by this but feeling overwhelmed about where to start?

Pick one meeting this week and start it by asking 'what are we trying to achieve here?' Then ask 'what's preventing us from getting there?' You don't need to implement a whole methodology - just start asking better questions.

Mike, this has been incredibly practical and useful. Thank you for taking the time to share these ideas.

Thanks Sarah. I hope your listeners find it helpful in whatever changes they're trying to create.