More demand -> increased prices for developer time. Greater costs / impact / scale of software development -> greater risk to the collective stakeholders. Great

More demand -> increased prices for developer time. Greater costs / impact / scale of software development -> greater risk to the collective stakeholders. Greater risk -> more potential for reactionary measures to implement more stringent hiring / control mechanisms. That's how you end up with many many interviews, lengthy code exercises, and huge opportunity costs for everyone involved. Consequently the same pressures would apply to software project management procedures towards growing complexity, and less agency/autonomy. Why does it seem like 'AGILE' often transforms into less of an idea of short feedback loops, context and communication and more into a bureaucratic control system? We implement control systems to reduce state space of unknowns / chaos and trade-off variance in favor of consistency. So if software in organizations is under high demand, increased cost, and greater risk it would also suggest likelihood of similar reactionary measures to implement control systems measures on software development as a whole. Consequently the ever present trade-offs of exploration vs exploitation or global vs local maximum would also apply meaning the reactionary measure of increasing control and consistency has side effects counter to its very purpose: improving software capabilities. Instead of increasing stringency / consistency through process/procedure also increasing cost of interaction one would instead want to reduce cost of interaction, but also reduce costs of downsides upon hiring (e.g. contract to hire + tasks to prove but where acceptability of failure is present). This has the added benefit of not accidentally removing "exploration" from the equation allowing higher risk higher reward employees into the organization which reduces risk of overfitting and innovator dilemma problems.