The Consistency Principle and the “Low-Ball” Effect in Agile Teams

[#1]

Agile teams value transparency, adaptability, and learning from reality.
But in day-to-day work, teams often fall into a subtle psychological trap that works against these principles.

It’s known as the low-ball effect, and it is driven by a deeper mechanism - the principle of consistency.

---

What is the low-ball effect?

It starts with a simple, attractive initial agreement.

• “Let’s just do a small discovery first.”

• “This is a rough estimate, we’ll refine it later.”

• “Let’s take it into the sprint and see how it goes.”

Once a person or a team says “yes”, something changes internally:

“We are the team that committed to this.”

From that moment, the decision becomes part of identity - not just a working assumption.

When new information appears later (more complexity, dependencies, risks), backing out becomes psychologically harder than continuing - even if continuing is clearly suboptimal.

---

Why this is especially dangerous in Agile

Agile is built on:

• empiricism

• inspect & adapt

• changing direction when new facts emerge

The consistency principle silently undermines all three.

Teams:

• defend initial estimates instead of revisiting them

• keep unrealistic sprint commitments

• avoid re-scoping because it feels like “going backwards”

• fear looking unreliable or unprofessional

As a result, teams optimize for appearing consistent, not for delivering value.

---

Common Agile scenarios

1. Estimation traps

A story is estimated with limited context.
Later, new complexity appears - but instead of re-estimating, the team “pushes through” to stay consistent with the original number.

2. Discovery - Delivery transitions

A lightweight discovery is approved easily.
When the real scope becomes clear, both the client and the team feel psychologically locked in - stepping back feels harder than moving forward.

3. Sprint commitments

Mid-sprint, it’s obvious the team overcommitted.
Still, the issue is not raised openly - because revising the plan feels like a failure, not adaptation.

---

A simple question that breaks the trap

A powerful question for teams and stakeholders:

“Would we make the same decision today, knowing what we know now?”

If the answer is “no”, the decision is likely being held together by consistency bias, not by value or evidence.

---

Practical ways Agile teams can counteract it

• Explicitly state the level of uncertainty when making decisions

• Frame early decisions as temporary hypotheses, not commitments

• Normalize re-estimation and re-scoping as signals of maturity, not mistakes

• Encourage leaders and Scrum Masters to reward transparency over “heroic delivery”

---

What real consistency looks like in Agile

Consistency is not about sticking to an old “yes” at all costs.

Real consistency means:

• being consistent with reality

• being consistent with data

• being consistent with learning

Agile is not about pushing forward no matter what.
It’s about having the courage to pause, reassess, and choose a better next step when the facts change.

---

Discussion questions (great for teams & retros)

• Where do we tend to protect past decisions instead of revisiting them?

• Which commitments feel hardest to renegotiate — and why?

• How safe do people feel saying: “This no longer makes sense”?