Beyond Fake – Navigating Polarities in Product and Change Work

Have you noticed how discussions around product development, agile ways of working, and change management often turn black and white fast?

As if it’s always about choosing a side:

• Structure or freedom

• Planning or learning

• Process or people

And how these kinds of either/or narratives often reinforce the problem rather than help us move forward?

We see it in classic terms like “fake agile”, and more recently in discussions around “fake product.” Both describe different expressions of the same dynamic: getting stuck in our own perspective, and defending it by either demonizing the opposite or hiding behind new labels.

Two sides of the same coin

Fake agile is often criticized for clinging to the left side of the Agile Manifesto—individuals, collaboration, adaptability—without addressing the real tensions that come with them. Meanwhile, structure, documentation, and planning are rejected entirely.

Fake product often swings the other way: highly structured processes, documentation, and planning are reframed with new terminology—“product discovery,” “value stream,” “innovation sprint”—but beneath the surface, it’s business as usual.

In both cases, methods are used to justify continuing down a familiar path. But the real issue isn’t whether you use structure or adaptation. It’s when we’re not honest about what we’re doing—or why.

That’s why I sometimes react to articles or posts that set up polarizing contrasts like:

“When people thrive, the system works – not the other way around.”

or

“People come and go – structure is what keeps the wheels turning.”

I get what they’re trying to say. But to me, these kinds of messages risk reinforcing the very narrative we should be moving beyond: that one side is right, the other wrong. Instead, we need to get better at holding two perspectives at the same time.

Polarities, not opposites

Many of these tensions are not choices to be made, but polarities to be navigated. These are dynamic relationships between two necessary truths:

• Structure and adaptability

• Stability and change

• Planning and flexibility

Neither side is right nor wrong in itself. But when we try to live in only one, we eventually run into trouble. Only when we begin to see these tensions as something to be managed, not problems to be solved, can we build something truly sustainable.

Navigating, not winning

I understand the need to be clear. I agree that some choices are better than others. But what’s “better” depends on the context. And to me, that’s where true professionalism lies: the ability to sense when structure is needed and when freedom is called for—and to switch between them with sound judgment.

This is not a call for compromise or for finding the middle ground. It’s a call for embracing complexity. Because when we stop trying to win the argument and instead focus on navigating the polarity, that’s when real movement begins.

Conclusion: What are we building on?

If we want to move beyond fake behaviors—regardless of the label—we need more than new models. We need a more conscious relationship to the tensions we live with. It’s not about replacing one battle cry with another, but about training ourselves to keep multiple perspectives alive simultaneously.

We build best when we hold both a clear structure and genuine curiosity. When we plan to stay adaptable. And when we talk honestly about our choices, instead of painting ourselves into a corner.

That’s when real progress happens.

And isn’t that what we’re after?