The problem is that programmers answer to idiots, but nevertheless those idiots have certain reptilian sensibilities in which they exceed us, and a consequence of this is that they have a knack for zero-sum power grabs and pissing contests. So, even though those people are 30-50 IQ points below us, they nevertheless end up remaining on top, and there isn't really much we can do about it unless we're prepared to burn down a whole socioeconomic system (which I am, but most people aren't there yet).

"Sprints" are supposed to be humiliating. The very message is that you're not trusted with even two fucking weeks of your own (!!) working time. It could not be clearer. If you work in sprints, it's because the higher-ups think you're a child and a loser, and you'll never be able to overcome that negative inference, because if you perform poorly you will confirm it and if you perform well, you will confirm that their micromanagement actually works--there is no winning.

Also, "Waterfall" never really existed. It was a straw man invented to sell this Agile bukkake.

In any case, a number of the dysfunctions are, in effect, intentional. Standups that go on for 45+ minutes? Long meetings are a classic way for managers to punish perceived underperformers (or, in Agile terms, "impediments") when they're not entirely sure who problem player is. The theory is that the rest of "the team" (I put this term in quotes because coworkers in corporate aren't an actual team--that's just management speak--but are often pitted against each other) will get sick of the incessant meetings and rat out the underperformer who is causing this wastage of time. The humiliations of Jira and "user stories" aren't bureaucratic accidents that occurred in good faith; they hurt because they're supposed to hurt.