I found this also happened in my team although he may exaggerated the situation a little bit.
Scrum is a way to take a below average or poor developer and turn them into an average developer. It's also great at taking great developers and turning them into average developers.
Everyone just wants to take something easy off the board that you can get done in a day so you have something to report in tomorrow's daily scrum. It's just everyone trying to pick the low hanging fruit. There's no incentive to be smart and to take time to think about solutions, if nothing is moving across what are you even doing? You're letting the team down! The velocity is falling!
I think if you have hard problems to solve you solve them by giving them to smart people then leaving them alone. You don't constantly harass them every day demanding to know what they did yesterday and what they plan to do today. With daily updates where is the incentive for the smart people to work on the hard problems? They now have the same incentive as the junior developer; find the easiest tickets to move across the board.
Sometimes I will want to just be alone and think about a solution for a few days. If I do that though I'd have nothing to say at the scrum. So instead I'll pick the user story where the colour on a front end was the wrong shade of green or a spelling mistake! See, I knocked out 2 stories in one day, before lunch! Go me!
I don't fully agree with his words, e.g. I agree with one comment said it's not that they (managers) don't trust them, it's that they don't get things done without constant supervision.
When a great developer becomes an average developer there are always multiple reasons, but I do find daily scrum could be one of reasons. So how do I prevent this side-effect of scrum meetings?
I also realized it is easier said than done, but I like to see how others see this problem.
----- update -----
After reading all the answers I have got so far I realize I need to add some information to make my question more relevant.
But before I getting into that I want to repeat the words Martin Maat gave in his answer, "The mere fact that so many people feel the need to say something about it is an indicator of the frustration Scrum causes."
Totally agree! When I first asked the question I already expected some answers would be "oh you don't do scrum right!"
Some corrections I want make to my original question are,
- I used the word "great developer" and I probably should just say a decent/good developer because I have seen that sidetracked answers. Besides, through out my career I never work with great developers so I shouldn't use that in the first place. What I meant was I see from time to time that scrum has made a good developers perform less well.
- some answers focus the sentence "it's that they don't get things done without constant supervision" and believed that was micromanaging issue. But this was not my cases e.g. I don't do micromanage. The problem I experienced (again from time to time) is a good/tech-savvy developers are not necessarily a business-savvy one. Sometimes they will focus on perfecting their technical solution too much without realizing we have a product to deliver in the end. Other times it is a cross-function feature that needs coordination, especially each team may have its own priority/schedule. That is why they need supervision. But I guess I shouldn't just copy the word "constant supervision" from original post, should not use constant in the first place. But again, if someone argues that "great developers" and "great team" don't do that, I have no counter-argument then.
- One answer said "the daily scrum somehow turned into a competition who has completed the most tickets". I never experienced that. A mature team does not do that (a mature is not necessarily a great team though). Has anyone experienced that ?