> But no matter the process, if a manager is destroying productive time from the developers the fault is in the individual, not the environment or process adopted.

Why can't it be both? Bad managers can be empowered by a process, just as good managers could be hampered – no?

Agile provides so many tools for bad managers to micro manage, so that even if the process itself is well intended it still could lead to hell – no?

One of the tenets from Agile is "People before Process". Bad managers will micromanage no matter what processes or tools they have at hand.

So, no. Bad managers should not be empowered by Agile. They should be weeded out, by other people first and, failing that, results second.

> Sure, probably this was more about him being a good manager than the "process" behind it.

Of course also that, but you're completely right that that is the exact job of the Scrum Master. To "remove impediments". No matter if the impediment is some process or a manager, it's the Scrum Master's job to remove it.

This actually aligns pretty well with the ideas in Agile Manifesto. And that's why I'm so sad when "scrum master" nowadays mostly seems to mean someone who counts the minutes devs spend on each Jira ticket, and haunt the team when velocity seems to be dropping 10% for the second day in a row.