The “Agile” Team That Was Actually Just Doing Waterfall in Sprints
Every two weeks, they ran a sprint review. The stakeholders attended. The demos were polished. The velocity charts trended in the right direction. And nothing significant ever changed based on what anyone said in that room.
That’s not agile. That’s theater with a two-week rhythm.
I’ve coached enough product teams to know that the mimicry of processes is one of the most expensive habits in software development. It looks like agility from the outside. It absorbs all the cost — the ceremonies, the tooling, the vocabulary; but delivers almost none of the benefit. Teams often know this, but feel powerless to speak up because the ceremonies themselves have become the “proof” of professionalism.
What I Mean by “Waterfall in Sprints”
Classic waterfall builds a plan, locks it in, and executes. The problem isn’t the plan; it’s the lock. Once a plan is locked, new information becomes a threat rather than an input.
Agile was designed to solve this through short cycles and continuous adaptation. However, in practice, many teams run two-week sprints and hold every ceremony, yet execute against a roadmap decided by leadership months ago that will not change — regardless of what the sprint reviews reveal.
The Rise of “Mechanical Agile”
According to Scrum.org, this is known as Mechanical Agile. Here is how it manifests:
- Daily Scrum: Becomes a simple status report for the manager.
- Sprint Planning: Used only to confirm decisions made elsewhere.
- Retrospectives: Surface the same surface-level issues every month with no resolution.
- Sprint Reviews: High-production demos followed by polite, meaningless applause.
Root Cause: Psychological Safety
It is tempting to blame the framework, but the process is usually fine. The problem is that adaptation is politically dangerous.
Get Colin Mercer’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
McKinsey’s research indicates that the most consistent predictor of team adaptability is psychological safety. If team members believe they cannot surface bad news without personal cost, the ceremonies become defensive. You omit the signals that would challenge the roadmap to protect your standing.
The Cost of Performance Kollabe’s 2025 study found that low-safety teams run the exact same ceremonies as high-safety teams but extract a fraction of the value. The process is identical; the outcomes are not.
Case Study: Breaking the Cycle
Three years ago, I worked with a SaaS team that was “textbook agile” but completely stuck. The PM knew a core assumption in the roadmap was wrong but had been shut down weeks prior.
I took a simple, uncomfortable step: I canceled Sprint Planning. In its place, we held a four-hour session with one agenda item: What do we actually know, and what are we pretending to know?
By the end, the team had identified three major risks that the “polished” sprint reviews had ignored. The Agile Alliance notes that this shift requires leaders to model vulnerability — you can’t just give “permission” to speak; you have to prove that challenging the status quo carries no cost.
Practical Intervention
If your team looks agile but isn’t adapting, stop looking at the velocity and start looking at the Retrospective. Change your questions:
- What did we know two weeks ago that we chose not to act on?
- What did we see during the sprint that we were afraid to say?
- Are our ceremonies generating genuine reflection or just generating artifacts? (A key metric from 2025 DIVIM research).
