Interesting article in Gamasutra. Jason Avent talks about their experiences with agile:
And they define how they do the work, and what work they do, and what order. That means that because they're closest to the work, closest to the jobs that need doing, they make better decisions than the people who are further away.
So it makes people happier, it makes people much more productive, it means they don't have to work such long hours, and the product is better. It's such a hands-off management method, it does make you bite your fingernails a bit, initially, but once you see the results, it's huge.
It can take a bit more bravery than "biting your fingernails a bit". Giving autonomy to teams, even for a couple weeks at a time, is too much for some managers.
Another cause of adoption failure is hiding from transparency; Scrum, done correctly, exposes everything that is wrong with your development environment. Some managers will see this flood of exposed flaws as being caused by Scrum. Instead of addressing the actual problems, they will stop the experiment with Scrum and everything goes quiet again. Problem solved!
Whenever I visit a studio to talk about agile and Scrum, there is always that person or small group of people that are at the center of the adoption. They are taking a chance introducing and championing a new way to think about how people work together. I'm always impressed by them.