I hate to use the word "Agile" because the very act of naming seems to encourage the nonproductive behaviors the OP is talking about. Calling it a "process" is even worse, because it's a metaprocess, not a process.
Like he says, "it's the doing, the reflecting, and the adapting that count the most." That doesn't really need a name; that's just how you become good at anything. Software, jazz piano, raising chickens...anything.
Any productive methodology is a local adaptation to local conditions. Any codified methodology should be treated as a suggestion, not a constraint. If you stop observing and adapting your methods, they rapidly become less relevant and eventually turn into useless dogma. I'm pretty sure that just about anyone who is good at doing anything does this without being told, or giving it a name.
I hate to use the word "Agile" because it has lots of baggage at this point. There's the lingering smell of snake-oil salesman, the push-back against hardcore zealots who can't cross the gap between theory and practice, and the overly simplistic "I know what the English word 'agile' means" interpretation.
And while I love what a lot of people are doing around "Lean" software/startups, I'm starting to hate using that word, too.
Like he says, "it's the doing, the reflecting, and the adapting that count the most." That doesn't really need a name; that's just how you become good at anything. Software, jazz piano, raising chickens...anything.
Any productive methodology is a local adaptation to local conditions. Any codified methodology should be treated as a suggestion, not a constraint. If you stop observing and adapting your methods, they rapidly become less relevant and eventually turn into useless dogma. I'm pretty sure that just about anyone who is good at doing anything does this without being told, or giving it a name.