The article is indeed full of misconceptions, but I think the main point the author is addressing is Agile does not deliver. I see it as a product of today's corporatization of Agile, where agile approaches are being pushed under corporate bureaucracy, and delivery is meant as an improvement under an obsolete set of KPIs. In my 15+ years of Agile experience, I couldn't see many of those star-passionate developers doing things well. A typical company has one, two, or sometimes even three of them. The remaining fifty-plus are mediocre or just juniors. The same with agilists; coaches, or any masters. 80% of people or more want to go with a crowd, avoid accountability, and do not want to be exposed. It is uncomfortable. They often manage their benefits for themselves and do not care about the big picture. If these people are under corporate bureaucracy, they are just passive. Agile is not about a manifesto. It started around two decades before it as an attempt to develop techniques suitable for managing knowledge-intensive and creative organizations. These techniques are to break apart bureaucracy and the status quo. So it naturally requires courageous people. If these are missing, nothing gonna change. This is happening with Agile now, weak agilists prevent the change and any super process is therefore too short.