Moreover, daily standups, billed as lightweight, low key check-ins,
    have become, for some workers, exercises in surveillance.
    Particularly when work is decomposed into small parts, workers feel
    an obligation to enumerate every task they’ve accomplished. There’s
    also pressure for every worker to justify their worth; they are,
    after all, employees, who need to be perceived as earning their
    salaries. 

This is a great summary about how I feel about "agile": it's patronising and anxiety inducing. The degree to which is a function of the technical and social abilities of whoever's calling the shots -- the PM, SCRUM master, whatever -- but, of course, their steering is necessary, regardless. Leaders with strong technical chops and high emotional intelligence exist, but are rare, I think.

Similarly, this is why I don't believe that a fully egalitarian group of engineers would work, either: All skill and no direction doth not a project make. Besides, true egalitarianism doesn't really exist. Some will be stronger than others; some will have weaknesses that are complemented by colleagues (hence the value of diversity); some will be brazen, while others shy. Inevitably, a de facto leader will emerge. In my experience, often the loudest, rather than the most effective.

Building complex software is a social problem more than a technical one.