My main point of dislike is that I have never experienced the actual practices called "Agile" on the ground by the consultants/managers introducing them bearing

My main point of dislike is that I have never experienced the actual practices called "Agile" on the ground by the consultants/managers introducing them bearing any relation to the oft-quoted Agile manifesto. "Value individuals and interactions over processes and tools", says the Agile consultant as they open the meeting; they then proceed to shut down any interaction between individuals that is not on the agenda, or that is on the agenda but takes longer than a sentence or two. "Value working software over comprehensive documentation", says the Agile consultant as they open the sprint planning. "These tickets should contain enough detail that a new hire coming to them cold can pick up the work." "Value customer collaboration over contract negotiation", says the Agile consultant. "Value responding to change over following a plan. Also, these items must be delivered by end of Q4; let's schedule some meetings with management to discuss why the team's burndown chart is going up and not down." Agile is like true communism: always preached, never reached. It is a fig leaf for toxicity. The ideal true Agile practitioner cannot be faulted; and you will never encounter them. The word "Agile", when encountered in real-world corporate scenarios, does not mean the things described in the manifesto, though the manifesto will often be quoted; rather, hearing it invariably means the frog has reached boiling temperature and it is well past time for anyone who can still flee to flee. "Agile consultant" is the modern term for an outsider that management have brought in to whip the thoroughbreds so that the resulting negativity falls on the outside party - which can then be let go again - and not anyone permanently employed by the company. We may want the word to mean nicer things, but that is not how it is actually used.