[nonstickcoating]

I do not think the article argues that Agile somehow incites racism and bias, it argues that it doesn't account for them while it should.

[asplake]

Agile's crisis (which is real) is because despite the generativity of the manifesto, the frameworks it spawned largely ignore how change happens in a healthy and sustainable way. It is deeply ironic how much the Agile industry leans into 1990's models of change (solution-driven, imposed, etc).

That explains an awful lot. When people think that it's enough that they're right, bad things happen. Agile doesn't actually need a theory of society to understand that, just a little humility.

[nradov]

The Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) includes review and change cycles driven by teams at the grass roots level. Of course some organizations skip that part, but you can't blame agile frameworks for management choices.

[mojzu]

It's also only a couple of paragraphs in a long post and offers some evidence of parts of the agile methodology (retrospectives and code reviews) being used to harass people so it seems unfair to knock the article for those reasons in my opinion

[BlargMcLarg]

That's a problem with top-down management in general. If your management is largely old white men who pull the strings, yes obviously it's going to account for their opinions the most.

Author misses the part where the majority of the working force is also "white men" who see no benefit from this either, because it turns out, the decisions of management aren't for "white men" or even "old white men". The decisions are for "our management".

[spaetzleesser]

Agreed. I am a white man but I don’t feel much connection to upper management. It doesn’t really matter if the leaders are white, not white, male or not. They are out for themselves and don’t really care about their underlings.