The relogious people (mentioned in the article) harmed by false adherence. They adhered to the headlines and warped the substance of what the Methodology said. I remember (with pain) a place that wouldn't develop development scaffolding. They had rules for software development, good ones, motivated by achieving near-perfect uptime for customer-facing services. Implementing a scaffolding service or crontab to that standard was a lot of work.
Then there's the non-adherents who eroded the Methodology. Like the scrum shops that eroded scrum by deemphasising the product owner and stories until the result looked more like a waterfall.
The Methodologies may be broken as a whole but the practice I've seen was generally so distorting that I feel it's unfair to blame the Methodologies.