Moreover, daily standups, billed as lightweight, low key check-ins,
have become, for some workers, exercises in surveillance.
Particularly when work is decomposed into small parts, workers feel
an obligation to enumerate every task they’ve accomplished. There’s
also pressure for every worker to justify their worth; they are,
after all, employees, who need to be perceived as earning their
salaries.
This is a great summary about how I feel about "agile": it's patronising and anxiety inducing. The degree to which is a function of the technical and social abilities of whoever's calling the shots -- the PM, SCRUM master, whatever -- but, of course, their steering is necessary, regardless. Leaders with strong technical chops and high emotional intelligence exist, but are rare, I think.
Similarly, this is why I don't believe that a fully egalitarian group of engineers would work, either: All skill and no direction doth not a project make. Besides, true egalitarianism doesn't really exist. Some will be stronger than others; some will have weaknesses that are complemented by colleagues (hence the value of diversity); some will be brazen, while others shy. Inevitably, a de facto leader will emerge. In my experience, often the loudest, rather than the most effective.
Building complex software is a social problem more than a technical one.
In his talk "Agile is Dead", Dave Thomas (one of the creators of the Agile Manifesto) speaks about how distorted and perverted the manifesto's intentions have been by the "Agile" industry.
Striving to be agile, flexible, adaptable is a very valid and useful principle.
"Agile" as a noun, the cult-ish process-training-industrial-complex is not at all agile.
Surveillance by whom? A standup consists of the team and a scrum master, who is usually on the team because most companies can't afford a dedicated one.
My brother and I have developed a "the enemy was capitalism all along" refrain, and it's pretty wild how what started as facetious irony has slowly felt more and more correct.
Similarly, this is why I don't believe that a fully egalitarian group of engineers would work, either: All skill and no direction doth not a project make. Besides, true egalitarianism doesn't really exist. Some will be stronger than others; some will have weaknesses that are complemented by colleagues (hence the value of diversity); some will be brazen, while others shy. Inevitably, a de facto leader will emerge. In my experience, often the loudest, rather than the most effective.
Building complex software is a social problem more than a technical one.