I should be able to find some really elaborated articles that question the highly praised benefits of those modern management techniques...
Unfortunately, Scrum has nothing to do with management techniques. It's a framework which tells you how to do the software development. Regarding managers, it says that a good team doesn't need managers, it needs people who keep away those who want to disturb the team. I have no idea why people thought that managers would let themselves be put aside.
Is there a conspiracy going on?
My version: The original idea of Scrum was great, but after that came the consultants and turned a good initiative into business. You can attend to courses and workshops for a lot of money, but they won't really help you with the challenges of the job. Until there's money in this business, you won't read any elaborated article about it.
Is scrum really that great?
My main problem is that Scrum is taught as the ultimate solution for every possible problem in the software industry, but there isn't a good way to scale it, use it for maintenance or handle cases when team are changing often. It says that the teams should be kept together almost forever, or if you test well you won't need maintenance, etc. Tell this to you boss and there is a good chance that he'll finally have a good laugh. It is unrealistic.
I can understand that an organization wants to change because it feels that things could go better, and thanks to the hype, they'll find Scrum. Instead of trying out Scrum they should find out what their real problem is.
Nevertheless, it is a good thing to have a look at successful companies like Fog Creek, GitHub, 37signals and find out what their secret is (none of these companies do Scrum or follow any other Agile framework. They do certain techniques, but it is a different story).