We should be debating process versus commitment, though. “They can both work” is a bit facile.
Work isn’t (typically) done except in the context of workers’ lives. These paradigms incentivize different behaviors and cultures and there are real impacts on the lives of workers as a result. It’s a mistake to purport that we can ignore those consequences in an evaluation of what works.
I think one of the points in the conclusion is that these two ideas aren't actually on a spectrum, but rather are more orthogonal with each other. It's not a true binary choice so there isn't a real debate to be had between the two. Process doesn't preclude (though it may constrain) individual empowerment, and individual empowerment does not preclude (though it may constrain) process.
There are processes which actually do, to some extent, encourage individual empowerment. I would put the trend to distributed version control systems like git as a boon to both process and individual empowerment, as an example. I can use it much more freely to experiment in my feature branch than when using a system like SVN (in many classical scenarios of using SVN), but the pull request system integrated into many git server systems is itself a process approach to control (and hopefully improve) the development work.
I agree, but also consider the choice of the worker. Commitment comes from motivation; the motivation can have a very large impact. A friend of mind went to work for Google, did 5 years as a Senior, got a load of cash, married his dream girl from high school back home and is now traveling the world with her. This is his idea of heaven. Personally I would never have committed like he did; but this is my choice. The problem comes when people are lied to and bullied into doing things that they don't want to with no positive outcome for them.
Work isn’t (typically) done except in the context of workers’ lives. These paradigms incentivize different behaviors and cultures and there are real impacts on the lives of workers as a result. It’s a mistake to purport that we can ignore those consequences in an evaluation of what works.