I think the reason he's getting upvotes is that a lot of people have had similar experiences. It should be obvious that adopting Scrum won't fix a dysfunctiona

I think the reason he's getting upvotes is that a lot of people have had similar experiences. It should be obvious that adopting Scrum won't fix a dysfunctional organization[1]; nothing in the previous post, nor this one argues more than that. I'm more interested in some of the comments I have seen here of people observing the adoption of Scrum as significantly reducing the velocity at what was previously observed to be well run. Maybe adopting the more formal process revealed an underlying organizational dysfunction that could remain hidden in the previous laissez-faire culture, maybe there's something wrong with how Scrum gets implemented at those places, and maybe there's actually something wrong with Scrum itself. My only interaction with things explicitly described as "agile" (Scrum, or otherwise) appeared to be very large organizations mostly just renaming roles and processes that already existed, with a few minor changes that did not appear to have any effect (other than being able to claim that they were now "agile"), so I don't have any personal experience to answer any of these questions. 1: Though in defense of the ranters, you'll be able to find many Scrum consultants that will argue it can.