11 Agile Insights from Linkedin | April 2025

Last week, I logged onto LinkedIn, expecting the usual mix of job updates, industry news, and the occasional humblebrag. Instead, my feed was awash in what could best be described as an Agile Armageddon. Post after post, primarily from long standing agile professionals and those echoing their sentiments, declared "Agile is dead!" and lamented the "wrong" way companies are implementing it. The recurring theme? The perceived uselessness of the Scrum Master role, often portrayed as an uninformed bottleneck hindering developers. Another complaint was that corporate has destroyed Agile and that was why it is dead. What struck me most wasn't just the criticism, but the sheer anger radiating from these posts.

Frankly, it made my head spin. Had I missed some seismic shift in the tech landscape while I was buried in work for the first 2 weeks of April? Surely I did not train my algorithm to give me angry engagement posts. Was there a sudden industry-wide epiphany that Agile, the methodology so many have championed for over two decades, was suddenly obsolete?

My LinkedIn algorithm stumbled upon a very specific and rather vocal pocket of discontent. Adding to the strangeness of this overwhelmingly negative wave was the complete absence of any discussion around Atlassian Team '25! Usually when Team 25 is on, there are hashtags for days. For a platform so heavily intertwined with software development and Agile practices, the silence surrounding such a significant industry event was deafening and only amplified the oddity of the anti-Agile and Atlassian deluge in my feed.

To get to the root of this I want to unpack a few potential factors, and as a recent article aptly put it, perhaps it's not the death of Agile, but a sign that it has been misunderstood and misapplied for too long.

1. The Pendulum Swing and the Erosion of Simplicity: Like any popular methodology, Agile has likely reached a point of peak adoption, and with that comes scrutiny and critique. What was once seen as a revolutionary approach can, over time, become rigid, dogmatic, or simply poorly implemented. The original power of Agile lay in its simplicity: work in small increments, ship often, and react to feedback. However, as the aforementioned article highlights, many organizations transformed Agile into a rigid process, a mere checklist of sprints, standups, and retrospectives, losing sight of delivering real customer value. Velocity and burn-down charts often overshadowed actual outcomes, fueling the current frustration.

2. Implementation Issues (and the Scaling Challenge): The core principles of Agile collaboration, iterative development, and responsiveness to change are sound. However, the way these principles are translated into practice varies wildly across organizations, and this becomes particularly problematic when scaling. Many companies adopt the ceremonies of Agile (stand-ups, sprint reviews, retrospectives) without truly embracing the underlying mindset. Furthermore, they often fail to adequately invest in the necessary foundations for large, scaled teams to succeed. This includes:

• Insufficient Staffing for Scaled Agile: Implementing frameworks like SAFe (Scaled Agile Framework) or other scaling methodologies requires dedicated roles and structures to coordinate across multiple teams. Companies often underestimate the number of Agile Coaches, Release Train Engineers (RTEs), and other support personnel needed, leading to overburdened individuals and ultimately hindering the framework's effectiveness. Expecting a few people to manage and guide dozens or even hundreds of individuals across multiple teams is a recipe for bottlenecks and frustration. This mismatch between expectation and resourcing is undoubtedly a source of the anger I observed.
• Lack of Appropriate Tooling Beyond Basic Jira: While the Atlassian suite, including Jira and Jira Align, offers powerful capabilities for managing Agile workflows at scale, many organizations either don't invest in the full suite or fail to properly configure and integrate the tools. Expecting the same level of visibility, dependency management, and strategic alignment with a basic Jira setup compared to a fully utilized Jira Align environment is unrealistic. Without the right tooling to support communication, planning, and tracking across large teams, the benefits of scaled Agile are severely diminished, leading to the very chaos and inefficiency Agile was intended to prevent. This can fuel anger towards a methodology that promises efficiency but delivers the opposite due to inadequate investment.

It's crucial to remember that Agile transformations are not quick fixes; they demand significant time and financial investment. Moreover, these transformations often bring underlying issues to the surface. The increased transparency inherent in Agile ways of working can expose existing inefficiencies, communication breakdowns, and skill gaps that were previously hidden. This exposure can be uncomfortable and even painful for individuals and the organization as a whole, contributing to the frustration and anger surrounding Agile implementations.

3. The Scrum Master in the Crosshairs (and the Importance of Strategic Roles and Balanced Support): The Scrum Master role, intended to be a facilitator, coach, and servant-leader at the team level, often bears the brunt of frustration when Agile implementations falter and are seen as useless. If a Scrum Master lacks a deep understanding of the development process, fails to effectively remove impediments, or becomes overly focused on process adherence rather than value delivery, they can indeed become perceived as a hindrance. The direct and often harsh criticism aimed at Scrum Masters in those LinkedIn/TikTok posts clearly indicates a significant level of anger and resentment towards the role as it's often practiced. However, the issue extends beyond just the Scrum Master. While strategic roles like the Release Train Engineer (RTE) are crucial for coordinating and facilitating value delivery at the program level in SAFe, their effectiveness is significantly hampered if there isn't adequate Scrum Master support at the team level. An RTE overseeing multiple teams without sufficient Scrum Masters to guide and support those individual teams creates a bottleneck at the program level. The RTE becomes stretched thin, unable to effectively address the needs and impediments of each team, ultimately hindering the overall Release Train's delivery and reinforcing the negative perception of Agile's efficacy, adding to the overall sense of anger and disillusionment. Teams should be responsible for the team level delivery updates, not the Release Train Engineer.This aligns with many articles point that dogmatic framework adoption often leads to rigid implementations that prioritize compliance over impact.

4. The Perils of the Certification and Continuing Education Landscape: Adding to the frustration, and clearly contributing to the anger, is the growing perception that Agile certifications and continuing education requirements have become an over-inflated money grab. Many professionals question the high costs associated with initial certifications and the recurring fees for renewal and continuing education credits. They argue that the value derived doesn't always align with the financial investment. There's a sense, as the article points out, that rampant certifications from two-day courses churned out "Scrum Masters" and "Agile Coaches" who lacked real-world change management skills, leading to superficial adoption. This perceived lack of value for money is a significant source of the anger directed at the Agile ecosystem.

5. The Shifting Consulting Landscape: It's also highly probable that the anger stems, in part, from the fact that Agile might not be the lucrative consulting cash cow it once was. The true success of an Agile implementation should ideally lead to self-sustaining teams, reducing the long-term reliance on external consultants. As organizations mature in their Agile practices, the need for extensive, ongoing consulting engagements should naturally decrease, with consultants focusing on higher-level strategy and optimization. This shift away from continuous, large-scale engagements might be a source of frustra tion for some in the consulting world, potentially contributing to a more critical and even negative narrative around Agile's current state. The best indicator of a successful Agile implementation is the creation of self-sufficient teams, allowing organizations to move beyond heavy reliance on external support.

Interestingly, while direct articles explicitly stating a "scaling back" of Agile consulting by the top 4 firms (Deloitte, PwC, EY, and KPMG) are difficult to pinpoint, there's evidence suggesting a natural evolution and refocusing of their consulting models. These firms, along with others like McKinsey and BCG, are increasingly emphasizing broader "business agility" and "organizational transformation" rather than solely focusing on traditional Agile implementation for software development teams. This suggests a move towards more strategic engagements that encompass the entire organization, leveraging Agile principles for wider impact.

Furthermore, we might also be witnessing a shift in where Agile is most actively being adopted and where its value is most acutely felt. While large F500 companies have been the primary adopters of Agile for many years, I am seeing a trend where the current wave of adoption is tilting towards businesses in a rapid growth phase. These companies, experiencing growing pains and struggling to maintain pace and transparency due to a lack of established organizational structure, best practices and tooling, could find Agile particularly beneficial. For them, the need for transparency to identify value streams, pinpoint inefficiencies, and highlight areas for improvement becomes critical for sustainable growth. Agile's emphasis on iterative progress, clear communication, and continuous feedback loops could be a powerful tool for these rapidly expanding organizations to build structure and maintain control amidst rapid change. This potential shift in target audience for Agile adoption could also be influencing the current discourse and the types of challenges and successes being reported.

6. The Continued Demand for Scrum Masters: Interestingly, despite the vocal criticism on platforms like LinkedIn and TikTok, a quick look at job sites reveals that Scrum Master roles continue to be in demand. While the nature of the role and the expectations surrounding it might be evolving (seeking more for less), companies are still actively seeking individuals to fill these positions. This suggests a potential disconnect between the online discourse expressing frustration and the actual hiring practices within organizations. It's possible that companies are still trying to make Agile work and see the Scrum Master role as a key component, even if there's widespread disagreement on how that role should be executed effectively. This might also indicate that companies are still in the early stages of understanding and implementing Agile effectively and are still investing in the necessary roles, perhaps even hoping that the increased transparency will eventually lead to positive change. I see this demonstrated with highly qualified candidates being dropped because they have a CSM instead of a PSM or even more advanced certifications. This stems down to the person doing the recruiting and created the job description having a lack of understanding for the role or what is required. That is where my company Quantam Consulting (shameless plug) can come in as practice experts to help you shore up your hiring needs to ensure you get the right person. We can help you write a JD, review resumes, and even interview candidates to ensure you are getting the right candidates. We can even help you source them as contractors and have many strategic partnerships.

7. The Impact of Immature Teams: Even with well-defined roles and adequate tooling, the success of Agile hinges on the maturity and self-sufficiency of the development teams themselves. If teams are newly formed, lack experience with Agile principles, or are not empowered to make their own decisions, they will struggle to deliver value effectively. In these situations, metrics become unreliable, updates are inconsistent, and the promised benefits of Agile faster delivery, improved quality, and increased responsiveness fail to materialize. This disconnect between the promise of Agile and the reality of struggling, immature teams breeds frustration and anger towards the methodology itself. This echoes the article's concern that organizations lost sight of Agile's purpose: driving adaptability and delivering value to customers, instead focusing on process.

8. The Generational and Evolutionary Aspects of Agile: Given that Agile has been around for over two decades, it's reasonable to consider if the current discourse reflects its natural evolution or the influence of newer generations entering the workforce. Perhaps the initial idealism surrounding Agile has faded, and newer professionals, having grown up in a world where Agile is the norm (or at least frequently discussed), have a more pragmatic and critical perspective. It's possible that the methodologies and roles within Agile are adapting to the changing needs of the industry and the expectations of a new generation of workers who may have different values and approaches to collaboration and project management. The criticisms we're seeing could be a sign of this evolution in progress, a necessary re-evaluation of what works and what doesn't in the context of modern work environments.

9. The Echo Chamber Effect and Potential for Bots: LinkedIn's algorithm, while generally helpful, can sometimes create echo chambers. If a few influential voices in my network started posting critical opinions on Agile, the algorithm might have amplified those voices, showing their posts to a wider audience, including me. However, the sheer volume and consistent negativity of the content I was seeing last week made me wonder if there was more at play. It crossed my mind whether some of these highly critical posts were even from genuine individual accounts, or if there was a possibility of bot activity contributing to the anti-Agile sentiment. The uniformity of the complaints and the intensity of the emotion seemed almost orchestrated at times, prompting this thought. We all have seen a rise in fake AI generated bot accounts on Linkedin. Keep reporting them!

10. Second and Third-Level Connections Amplifying the Noise: Adding to this sense of disconnect was the fact that much of the inflammatory content being served up in my feed wasn't from my direct network. Instead, it was primarily from 2nd and 3rd-level connections – individuals I have some indirect connection to, but not a direct professional relationship. This meant that the algorithm was actively pulling in and highlighting these negative viewpoints from outside my immediate sphere, further amplifying the perception of a widespread "Agile is dead" movement, even though I wasn't seeing this level of negativity from my own trusted connections.

11. Market Evolution and the Value of Continuous Learning (Beyond the Label): While the value of some formal certifications is being questioned, the need for continuous learning in the Agile space remains crucial. The methodologies and best practices are constantly evolving. However, determining the market value of specific continuous development courses can be challenging. As the article suggests, perhaps the focus should shift beyond the "Agile" label towards broader "organizational agility" the ability to pivot swiftly at every level. The key is to focus on real value generation and measure success by tangible outcomes, not just process adherence.

Ultimately, despite the noise and the negativity, stating that Agile is dead seems incredibly shortsighted.

Responding to change isn’t Dead.

Adapting to your customer’s changing needs isn’t Dead.

#Experimenting and #Innovating isn’t Dead.

#Collaborating isn’t Dead.

Continuously Improving isn’t Dead.

All of these are more relevant than ever!

The "Agile is dead" pronouncements on my LinkedIn feed last week serve as a potent reminder that no methodology is a silver bullet. The success of Agile, or any framework, hinges on its thoughtful and context-aware implementation, the competence of the individuals involved, and a genuine commitment to its underlying principles including adequate and balanced investment in all necessary roles, the right tools, ensuring team maturity, and a critical evaluation of the value derived from certifications and continuous learning.

The sheer anger evident in these posts, juxtaposed with the continued demand for Scrum Masters and the eerie silence around events like Atlassian Team '25, suggests a deep-seated frustration with how Agile is often practiced, stemming from issues like underinvestment, over-commercialization, a focus on process over outcomes, dogmatic framework adoption, the painful but necessary transparency that Agile transformations bring, the potential shift in the consulting landscape where the focus should move towards enabling self-sufficiency, the increasing adoption and critical need for Agile in rapidly growing businesses for structure and transparency, and potentially the natural evolution of a long-standing methodology as new generations shape the workforce.

This highlights the urgent need for a more pragmatic and value-driven approach to its adoption and evolution, recognizing the significant time and financial commitment required for successful transformations, moving beyond the hype and focusing on genuine organizational agility and delivering real value to customers.

Perhaps it's not the death of Agile, but a necessary, albeit noisy and angry, stage of its evolution and a call for a return to its core, value-driven principles with a more realistic understanding of the necessary investment and the discomfort that comes with increased transparency, all while navigating the perspectives of a changing workforce and a maturing consulting market that should prioritize enabling organizational independence, because the fundamental principles of agility are far from dead, even if the online conversation I encountered felt unusually negative, detached from my immediate professional reality, and strangely silent on other relevant industry news. I know how frustrating seeing these posts can be for jobseekers as well.

What can we do?

Keep calm and carry on! Coach where needed and provide strategic and impactful insights...otherwise, grey rock and block until your feed comes back to where it was.

Share your experiences on how you turned the Agile is Dead conversation around in the comments below.