The Honest Reason Why Developers Hate Agile

Agile has become one of the most widely adopted methodologies in software development with its promising flexibility, collaboration, and faster delivery. Yet, despite its widespread use, many developers are left feeling frustrated, disengaged, and even cynical about Agile.

Why does this happen? Is Agile inherently flawed, or is there something deeper at play?

Before diving into the challenges Agile presents, let’s first step back and look at what came before Agile: Waterfall.

Understanding the contrast between these two methodologies can give us a better perspective on why Agile often meets resistance from developers.

What Came Before: The Waterfall Model

In the traditional Waterfall model, the software development process was broken down into distinct stages: requirements gathering, design, implementation, testing, and deployment.

Each stage was completed in sequence, with little overlap or iteration. The key characteristic of Waterfall was that the planning and decision-making happened almost entirely in the early stages, driven by managers, business analysts, and architects.

These key decision-makers would go up to an ivory tower, where they planned the project’s roadmap, defining the scope, deadlines, and budget before handing down detailed instructions to developers. Developers were tasked with executing the orders they were given, without much involvement in the early design and commitment phases. This separation allowed developers to remain detached from the initial commitments and roadmap.

If a project failed or deadlines weren’t met, developers could easily rationalize the failure, attributing it to poor planning or changing requirements. They weren’t the ones who made the original commitments, so they didn’t feel personally responsible for the outcome. This created a comfort zone for developers, where they could focus on writing code without the burden of ownership for the entire project.

While this model had its downsides such as rigid timelines, inflexibility to adapt to changes, and late discovery of issues, developers were insulated from much of the pressure that comes with decision-making.

The Core Cultural Challenge of Agile

Agile, by contrast, demands something fundamentally different from developers. Unlike Waterfall, where they were shielded from early decision-making, Agile requires developers to be active participants in every phase of the project. In Agile, teams work collaboratively to plan, design, estimate, and commit to the work ahead, meaning developers can no longer avoid responsibility for the project’s direction.

This is where the core cultural challenge of Agile becomes apparent. Developers are no longer just executors of someone else’s plan; they are contributors to the plan itself. This shift requires more than just technical skills. Developers must now engage in soft skills, like reading and interpreting documentation, negotiating timelines, presenting ideas, and compromising when necessary. They must find win-win solutions with clients and stakeholders, often balancing technical feasibility with business needs.

For many developers, this transition can be uncomfortable. They’re not used to political discussions or being involved in non-technical phases of development. Agile, with its focus on collaboration and accountability, can feel like an unwelcome disruption to the comfort zone they once enjoyed under Waterfall. And when Agile isn’t implemented well, these frustrations only intensify.

The Cycle of Cynicism

This incomplete implementation of Agile creates what I call a cycle of cynicism. Developers, who may not have been properly coached or supported, see Agile failing around them. They experience micromanagement disguised as Agile processes, with managers using tools like JIRA or standups to track tasks and grill developers on timelines. These developers, naturally, become frustrated, feeling as though Agile is just another form of control - another system to micromanage them.

Once developers have seen Agile fail in one organization, they carry that cynicism with them to the next, looking for others who share their frustrations. These bonds are formed around a shared dislike for a process that has been implemented poorly, reinforcing their belief that Agile doesn’t work. As they jump from company to company, they bring with them the skepticism and disengagement they developed in previous environments, perpetuating the cycle.

Why Developers Retreat to Their Comfort Zones

Agile is also challenging because it demands something many developers aren't comfortable with: active participation in every phase of the development process. In Waterfall methodologies, developers weren’t always involved in the early stages of project planning. Managers, business analysts, and architects would make decisions in isolation, handing down roadmaps, budgets, and timelines to developers who were tasked only with execution. This lack of involvement allowed developers to avoid some accountability for project failures, comfortably blaming others when things went wrong.

Agile, on the other hand, asks developers to contribute to planning, commitment, and decision-making. It’s no longer about just receiving orders but about being an active participant in shaping the project. For some developers, this shift can feel political, requiring soft skills, documentation, and debate - all aspects that might not align with their core interests in coding and technical work. And when Agile isn't working due to poor implementation, this discomfort grows. Developers retreat to their comfort zones, disengaging from the process and avoiding the burden of failed commitments.

The Problem with Agile Certification

Another issue is the quick-fix nature of Agile certifications. Many Scrum Masters are created in just two days, attending a workshop where they learn the basics of the framework but not the deep, practical skills needed to lead teams effectively. They may understand the technicalities of Agile - sprints, backlogs, velocity - but they lack the coaching ability, psychological insight, and experience needed to truly inspire developers and foster collaboration.

This gap between theoretical knowledge and practical leadership is a significant problem. These newly certified Scrum Masters are not equipped to deal with the human dynamics of development teams. They know the framework, but they don’t know how to empower teams, how to build trust, or how to handle resistance from developers who are reluctant to engage. Agile books and courses often focus on the "how-to's" of the framework, but they rarely dive into the psychological aspects of leading technical teams.

The Cultural Aspect: Agile as a Culture, Not Just a Framework

The critical mistake many organizations make is that they treat Agile as just a set of ceremonies and processes, when in fact it is a cultural transformation. As one of the blog posts highlighted, Agile is like Thai street food - you can follow the recipe, but without the right environment and understanding of the culture, it won’t taste the same. Agile demands a mindset shift across the organization, where transparency, collaboration, and trust become ingrained in the day-to-day operations.

Organizations often introduce Agile as a set of ceremonies without giving Agile coaches the authority to push through the necessary cultural changes. As a result, Agile becomes a skeleton of a process - standups, retrospectives, sprints - without the substance that makes it work. Developers who see this half-baked Agile implementation start to rationalize their disengagement. They revert back to their comfort zone, avoiding the burden of commitment and responsibility.

Breaking the Cycle of Cynicism

So how do we break this cycle of cynicism and make Agile work the way it’s supposed to?

The answer lies in holistic Agile transformation. It’s not enough to just train Scrum Masters or hold ceremonies. For Agile to truly succeed, organizations must commit to empowering teams, enabling coaches, and embracing cultural change at every level.

This means giving Agile coaches the power and authority to push through meaningful change, rather than just facilitating ceremonies. It means leaders need to understand that Agile is not just about checking off tasks but about collaboration, trust, and adaptability. And it means providing training and support for developers to engage in all phases of the process, helping them step out of their comfort zones and see the value in contributing beyond their technical roles.

Agile, when done right, can be transformative. It can lead to faster, more innovative development cycles, higher engagement, and better alignment between teams and business goals. But to get there, we need to stop treating Agile as just a framework and start treating it as a cultural shift - one that requires ongoing commitment, communication, and trust from everyone involved.