Agile Is Micromanagement in Two-Week Increments
Agile Is Micromanagement in Two-Week Increments
A critical look at how a philosophy of empowerment became a tool for control.
The cursor blinks. It’s been blinking for what feels like 19 minutes, a rhythmic, silent taunt on the shared screen. Kevin is explaining why ticket JRA-999 is blocked. He’s not really explaining it to the other seven engineers in the daily stand-up; he’s explaining it to Damien, the Scrum Master, who has the furrowed brow of a man trying to solve a complex equation that is, in reality, simple addition.
“The API credentials from the other team are still pending,” Kevin says, for the third time. His voice is flat. Defeated.
Damien leans closer to the Polycom speaker, as if proximity will conjure a different answer. “But Kevin, you story-pointed this at a 9. We accounted for some delay in the pointing. We have to keep the velocity up. What can you do today to move it forward?”
Daily Interrogation
The rest of us stare into our coffee mugs or at a fixed point on the wall behind our monitors. This isn’t a stand-up. It’s a daily, low-stakes interrogation. This isn’t about unblocking Kevin; it’s about Damien having something to report in his own stand-up-of-stand-ups. It’s about the illusion of forward momentum, a performance for an audience that isn’t even in the room. We call it Agile, but it feels more like organized anxiety.
The Weaponized Vocabulary
I’ll be honest, I used to champion this stuff. I’m the guy who, nine years ago, read the manifesto and thought it was a revolution in a business world choking on Gantt charts. I pitched it to my managers. I drew the diagrams on whiteboards. I celebrated the first “successful” sprint. Then I spent the next few years watching, horrified, as the corporate immune system absorbed the language of the revolution and weaponized it to reinforce the very command-and-control structures it was meant to dismantle. They took our vocabulary of empowerment-sprints, stories, velocity-and turned it into a high-frequency status report. Two-week increments of micromanagement.
“
It’s a subtle poison. It starts with story points. What was intended as an abstract, relative measure of complexity becomes a unit of productivity. An hour, but with plausible deniability. I once sat in a three-hour “grooming” session where two senior engineers argued over whether a task was a 9 or a 19. They weren’t debating the technical approach; they were negotiating their future accountability. They were managing the metric, not the work. The code hadn’t even been written, but the debt was already accumulating-not technical debt, but psychological debt.
The Dashboard of Reassurance
And I’m a hypocrite. I’m sitting here criticizing the weaponization of metrics, but just last year I found myself in a position of leadership, feeling the pressure from above. My director wanted “predictability.” So what did I do? I built a dashboard. A beautiful, color-coded monstrosity tracking sprint-over-sprint velocity, burndown charts, and commitment reliability. I told myself it was for “team health.” I told my team it was to “protect them” from outside questions. But really, it was for me. It was a shield. When my boss asked “Are we on track?” I could point to a number instead of having a conversation about trust. I fed the machine I claimed to despise.
Productivity Theater: The Dashboard
The real goal of these ceremonies, when they’re implemented out of fear, isn’t collaboration. It’s surveillance. It’s a manager’s deep-seated discomfort with not knowing what someone is doing for 49 minutes at a time. They want a constant feed, a persistent sense of control that true creative work simply cannot accommodate. It’s as if they wish they could install a camera to watch your work, not one of those visible poe cameras you set up to watch your property, but a digital one, streaming your every keystroke and mouse movement back to their dashboard of reassurance. Productivity theater. We’ve become actors in a play about working.
We traded trust for tickets.
The Water Sommelier Paradox
I met a woman named Pearl Y. at a strange little networking event a while back. Her job title was “Water Sommelier.” I was skeptical, maybe even a little condescending in my own head. She spent 29 minutes explaining how she could distinguish between waters from different aquifers based on minerality, mouthfeel, and something she called “structure.” She described the taste of silica-rich water from a volcanic spring in Iceland with the same passion a developer might describe a particularly elegant algorithm. She could identify the source of 49 different bottled waters with terrifying accuracy.
Respecting Expertise
Subtle Differences
Now, imagine telling Pearl that her process is inefficient. Imagine telling her she needs to taste 9 waters every 15 minutes to meet her quota. Imagine holding a daily stand-up where she has to justify why tasting one water took longer than another. You would not only get worse results; you would destroy the very expertise you hired her for. You’d crush the curiosity and focus that allows her to perceive those subtle differences. You’d turn a master of a craft into a bottling line inspector. Why do we intuitively understand this for a water sommelier, but fail to see we’re doing the exact same thing to our software engineers, designers, and writers?
The Cost of Interruption
We hire brilliant, expensive minds, people who can hold 239 different logical threads in their head at once to solve a problem, and then we subject them to a system that assumes they can’t be trusted to manage a single day’s work without constant supervision. The system is designed to interrupt. The daily stand-up interrupts the morning flow. The random Slack message from a manager asking for a status update on a sub-task interrupts the afternoon focus. The context switching costs are astronomical, but they don’t show up on any dashboard.
Hidden Costs of Context Switching
It’s because the philosophy was the hard part. The philosophy is about ceding control. It’s about managers becoming servants to the team, removing obstacles rather than demanding status. It’s about trusting that when you hire smart people and give them a clear goal, they will figure out the best way to get there. That’s terrifying for an organization built on a century of top-down management. It’s much easier to adopt the ceremonies. The meetings, the titles, the software. You get to look like you’re modern and innovative, while changing absolutely nothing about the underlying power structure. It’s a beautifully designed system for creating the appearance of change while ensuring everything stays the same.
Sorry, I think I drifted for a second. That happens sometimes. The sheer exhaustion of the performance of it all. The meetings aren’t the work. The tickets aren’t the work. The retrospectives where everyone says what they think the manager wants to hear are not the work. They are the friction. They are the organizational cholesterol hardening the arteries of progress.
Reclaiming the Territory
We don’t need another framework. We don’t need a new certification. We just need a bit of silence. A bit of space. A bit of the trust we extend to every other skilled professional, from a surgeon to a water sommelier. The goal was never to be “agile.” The goal was to build great things with talented people. We seem to have forgotten that. We optimized the map so intensely that we completely lost sight of the territory.
A Bit of Silence. A Bit of Space. A Bit of Trust.
The true essence of building great things lies in empowering talented people with autonomy, not controlling them with metrics.