> It's not just communication which is needed. It's effective communication. For example, criticism without structure and consideration comes across as unkind and destructive. This is the piece which I rarely see working well without a framework. It doesn't have to be scrum. I just see scrum solving this and many other problems really well.
Scrum does not help with effective communication at all. Its only tools for feedback are code review and retrospective. Its tools for teaching are code review, demos and planning sessions. There is literally no place in it for private feedback or some kind of learning plan or a weaker developer having tasks adjusted so that he can catch up (getting simpler ones, or only frontend ones till he learns that), literally nothing. And with public feedback, it provides zero guidance on how to do it anyway.
Instead, scrum prevents effective, safe and compassionate communication. It provides rituals, that is it.
> The catch is that changes should be agreed by all, rather than one member going rogue. "Rockstars" hate scrum.
Neither of these is true. Scrum is inflexible and the moment you change the process, you are not doing scrum and you will be forced to go back to scrum. Second, you will need to specify what you mean by rock starts. If you mean toxic personalities, they do well in scrum. If you like to control other people, scrum provides quite a lot of opportunity for that.
What it does not provide is opportunity of people to use full extend of their capabilities. People who are able to perform well and able to get along with others, you will definitely do better in processes that allows you to perform and get along with others. If rocks start here means a positive, a capable non toxic person with good social skills, yeah, those tend not to like scrum.
> There is literally no place in it for private feedback or some kind of learning plan or a weaker developer having tasks adjusted so that he can catch up (getting simpler ones, or only frontend ones till he learns that), literally nothing... Instead, scrum prevents effective, safe and compassionate communication. It provides rituals, that is it.
Sure, scrum is a team tool, not a personal development plan tool. The latter is best handled with one's manager. Note that I am not claiming scrum is an everything tool. It won't solve world hunger either. How on earth does scrum "prevent effective, safe, and compassionate communication"?? It just sounds like you're throwing accusations at the wall now to see what sticks.
It sounds like we've had vastly different experiences. I'm sorry to hear yours have been so unpleasant.
You started by saying that scrum helps team alignment, communication and dealing with weaker developers. That introverted developers need something like that to communicate, because they are avoiding tough discussions. You was literally talking about developers.
When I said that developers do tough part regularly in code reviews, you said that effective communication is more and scrum provides that more.
When I said that scrum does not provide "the more" and makes it harder, you said that scrum actually should not do any of that, manager should. And oh, scrum has scrum master and no manager, so no I guess no one is doing it.
-------
In a non scrum process, seniors do frequently take actively care about Juniors or own development. They can do it in systematic manner. They can actually work together on a lighly larger units of work with them. They can split work in a way that makes sense between the actual two people in question rather then based on what someone else prescribed.
Scrum does not help with effective communication at all. Its only tools for feedback are code review and retrospective. Its tools for teaching are code review, demos and planning sessions. There is literally no place in it for private feedback or some kind of learning plan or a weaker developer having tasks adjusted so that he can catch up (getting simpler ones, or only frontend ones till he learns that), literally nothing. And with public feedback, it provides zero guidance on how to do it anyway.
Instead, scrum prevents effective, safe and compassionate communication. It provides rituals, that is it.
> The catch is that changes should be agreed by all, rather than one member going rogue. "Rockstars" hate scrum.
Neither of these is true. Scrum is inflexible and the moment you change the process, you are not doing scrum and you will be forced to go back to scrum. Second, you will need to specify what you mean by rock starts. If you mean toxic personalities, they do well in scrum. If you like to control other people, scrum provides quite a lot of opportunity for that.
What it does not provide is opportunity of people to use full extend of their capabilities. People who are able to perform well and able to get along with others, you will definitely do better in processes that allows you to perform and get along with others. If rocks start here means a positive, a capable non toxic person with good social skills, yeah, those tend not to like scrum.