I have seen managers thinking the best thing about "agile" is enforcing staff discipline and maximal productivity ("stay on track", "press you ahead", "can not be too lazy"). It usually leads to a process that it really is still waterfall, but with, like, total surveillance and constant stress and developers being treated as interchangeable widgets.

It is sad to me to see a non-manager saying this is somehow the part they _like_.

The best experience I've had with agile processes was also one of the least stressful and most relaxing workplaces I've been in. I knew what I had to work on, I could trust that it was the _right_ thing to work on that wouldn't be a waste of time, and I had no pressure to "push myself", what could get done in work hours was what could get done in work hours, and sometimes you had to schedule some R&D/exploration time too. (The analogy of "sprint" is actually alarming when you think about how it's used -- you can only "sprint" for a short distance, you can't do back-to-back springs for 20 miles, the human body doesn't work that way!)

I think that may actually be one of the fundamental divides in "agile", whether someone is trying to use it as a productivity tool to "press ahead" developers who would otherwise be "lazy", to squeeze out the maximum possible work out of them, being unconcerned if you burn them out cause you can just replace them with another commoditized developer slotted into the "scrum".