This is totally an incomplete thought, and I'm not trying to be down on this author in particular: It's interesting to see a lot of management thoughts and colloquialisms slowly creep into the "other side" of software development (i.e. the actual developers) and become fairly well-tolerated. We still make fun of phrases like "paradigm" or "synergy", but we're all mostly on-board with phrases like "own " or "growth mi…
I'm first in line to make fun of the title "scrum master" and other nonsense. But the things that have crept in seem to have because they work. I'm results driven. I don't care who comes up with what or what it's named. If it works, I'm on board. If it doesn't, I'll lambast it.
Keep in mind that things like Agile and Scrum might have had buy-in from team members because a team member adopting it wasn't as high of a cost as the same team member leaving the job. You might be able to object, but you'll probably be overridden.
There's some amount of reprogramming that happens there to keep the team cohesive, so people might begrudgingly adopt new habits. So in those cases, "it works" is barely sneaking in because everyone was forced to make it work.
It's not as easy to prove/disprove as more objective things like program performance, size, or correctness. There's a whole lot of flavors of "it works" out there.