Hi Stanislav.

Scrum has massively changed over the years. E.g., the Scrum Master role has been completely redefined at least nine times.

So, having watched Scrum's adoption during the 2000s, I saw how much it derailed the Agile movement. That is really where my critique comes from - the actual impact that Scrum had.

The creators of Scrum, IMO, have been extremely unethical from the outset. IMO they tried to monetize the Agile movement by retroactively claiming that their little framework was "Agile", even though it preceded the Agile Manifesto. Here is an article I wrote on that: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/scrum-unethical-from-start-cliff-berg/

Both Agile and Scrum completely missed the importance of leadership. Leadership style is _central_ for any human group endeavor. There is nothing more impactful than the leadership styles of the people. And if there are no designated leaders, leaders emerge, and they tend to be the most assertive - not necessarily the best leaders.

What I see in the Scrum Guide, including the most recent iteration of that guide, is an attempt to put parameters around what collaboration should look like. But my colleagues and I looked at the most agile companies we could find, and discovered that none of them required Scrum. In fact, the most agile, SpaceX, doesn't do anything like Scrum.

In my own career, the most agile teams I have been on did nothing like Scrum.

I also feel that Scrum's practices are kind of anti-patterns, because there is not one that I would choose to use. For each practice in Scrum, there is, IMO, a better way to achieve the intention of that practice.

If you like Scrum, that is okay. If it works for you, it is probably because you have a mature style of leadership. Good leaders often do not even know that they are leading.