Thread regarding U.S. Bank layoffs

@m3 what an incredibly lazy and uninformed take. Another example of someone screaming loudly about how inexperienced they are. You've obviously only worked at USB or have limited experience anywhere else.

Keep painting with your broad brush, where all roles are either good or bad. You really think it's that simple? You don't believe some of these people know what they're, while others don't (and I agree, there are those scrum masters that don't know what they are doing....just like with every role)

In fact, because Agile is so heavily dependent on the personal responsibility of the people on the team, your attitude indicates you are negatively impacting your team. And once again, indicating that you have no idea how Agile is supposed to work. You want to blame your scrum master for that, fine. But ultimately, YOU are the one who is failing, pal.

You may want to figure this out before your layoff (and it is coming, don't fool yourself), because if you carry this attitude, it will be revealed in the interview.

I have a PSM I certification, and have worked in IT my entire career. One of the biggest issues with being Agile at the bank is that they got sold of a bill of goods with the "Shield Agile" nonsense, which is nothing more than a variation of SAFe. The only thing "agile" about SAFe is that is uses agile/scrum terms. However, it's nothing more than Waterfall with added risks.

Most of the "Agilists" at the bank wouldn't know what Agile was if it sat on their face.

Scrum masters were failed managers or failed programmers. They brought nothing to the party but a failed career. Upper management tossed them a bone and made the scrum masters. Why would anyone expect success from this group?

"I'd say 25% of the scrum masters got the real point of it. They knew when to apply scrum but then also when to back off the "we must follow scrum guide exactly"."

This is what is missing for the most part...the agile leadership wields their hammer and turn anything into a nail. They have no concept of only applying the principals that fit the project and were so dogmatic in their approach they turned off most of the engineers.

Forcing tools and policing language is not the way to be agile...it's the opposite.

The best Scrum Masters get rotated often they step into broken teams, help them become self-sufficient, and then move on to where they’re needed most. The worst are the ones who sit on the same team for years without ever making a real impact.

Good Lord, more "all scrum masters are bad" nonsense. Honestly, how inexperienced are you? Your comments indicate you have either very little experience, and/or, you've worked at very few places, or maybe you've only worked at US Bank.

The value of the role is certainly dependent on the individual filling it. And some are better than others. But the biggest impact comes from how well the org has adapted to the Agile approach and how well it's adopted at all levels in the org. I've seen it work in some places, and fail miserably in others. And the larger the org, the hard it is to get the org and to adapt to it.

If you had any experience, you'd already know this. But instead you want to simplify the dysfunction you see down to one thing. Which indicates you don't understand the complexities you're dealing with, and you don't get how a sc--wed up organization like US Bank makes it impossible for Agile, or any other approach, to function consistently and effectively.

When you get laid off from USB, and you will, you are going to have a very hard time with your fixed mindset. Good luck in the interviews.

I appreciate the comments from the scrum master. In our area, scrum masters are glorified admins. Create meetings, tell everyone to get more done, act like everyone is lazy, do the same the following business day. They "work" 1.5 hours a day and get paid for 8. You could easily get rid of each useless scrum master and rotate the duties to others on the team.

I’m gonna enjoy every bit of this role collecting the paycheck, putting in my 1–2 hours a day, and living stress-free. Don’t be mad, you picked your path. Jealousy isn’t a good look.

@dh Maybe your Scrum Master needs to figure out why taking time off is so difficult for you. Perhaps you are burdened with too much work?

I’m a Scrum Master, and I’ll admit it’s rare to find one who does more than just run stand-ups and actually supports the team. Most in this space aren’t qualified. The misuse of Jira with endless fields, plus the broken Dragonboat implementations where nothing even links, only overcomplicates things. I see the team’s pain and their complaints firsthand. Too many of my peers just coffee badge, disappear, and bark orders without even knowing how to do what they’re asking others to do.

I’m a product manager and our SM is the only reason I am able to take time off, EVER. They pull their weight, facilitate planning and understand process surrounding how to develop digital products. They’re also shared across multiple teams… I don’t know how they do it. I wouldn’t want their job!

I have not seen any agility or scrum master add any value EVER! They are usually the most arrogant and create more work.

They are in cahoots with senior leadership to work our behinds off to get a project completed and they are no where to be found when we are up all night releasing a project full of bugs because it’s “gotta go”.

They keep hiring lazy people who only show up for stand-up and then disappear. They don’t resolve risks, remove impediments, or coach the team. I’ve seen plenty of opportunities where they could step in to help—but instead, they sit back, create extra work for others, and often become bottlenecks. They even overcomplicate Jira, yet don’t know how to use it themselves to build simple queries or dashboards.

A scrum master is not a PM. That said, a really good CSM (certified scrum master) can be a fantastic bonus to an agile team. An average one can be ok, and a poor one can actually hamper work. Different job vs. a PM, but often the impact is the same based on quality. CSMs are mostly expense and not capital, so corporate is being short-sighted in cutting then to reduce costs and then forcing teams to picemeal it without them. Little or no quality CSMs in an agile world is not ideal or very efficient.

Ah the typical ack in my day, grumpy "my way is the best way" engineer - btw I am an engineer and manage some too. And let's just say I am over 45 also without giving away too much detail.

I've seen agile work REALLY well. Often the real ki-ler is NOT scrum masters, but higher up leadership that is clueless - demand agility but refuse to be agile themselves (hint - transofrming to agility starts at the top). Also it doesn't help when engineers come in with a pissy attitude thinking they know better. We have LOTS of those types in our profession.

The only gripe I have with many scrum masters are those that are just the typical former project manager - get certified in scrum - I now am a scrum master type person who never got the mindset of agility. They became scrum religious sheep.

I'd say 25% of the scrum masters got the real point of it. They knew when to appy scrum but then also when to back off the "we must follow scrum guide exactly".

Having said all that, scrum master role really is not a long term job role. It's a skill. The industry just needed these coaches for ~10 years. Too many people just dove in and made it their job titles. Dangerous in my opinion. They won't be around as a job title much longer, this is a fact.

Agile mindeset, light agile process, and sometimes formal scrum done RIGHT with a leadership that gets it - it does work. I've seen it myself outside the bank.

But this bank was never going to do well because we are not agile at all. Too many heavy handed leaders and too much regulation and compliance red tape to deal with. And we are on track to be classified as a G-SIB Tier 5 - the lowest tier on G-SIB list- soon (or at least GK wants it that way) which means heavier capital requirements - more reason why GK is so heavy handed with cost reduction and layoffs. Yes, I've been in a couple convos where people higher than me are actively talking about it.

The bank decided to go with scrum based off of positive results. Why would you want them gone when results show engineers as being more productive when Agilists can follow up on dependencies, look into risks, facilitate meetings to gather information, etc to make their lives easier and let them work on what they want to work on (ie. Coding, etc). Who do you hate more, the engineers or the Agilists!?

There's obviously someone on this thread who has a beef with Agilists. To be so bitter as to make this personal against people just doing their jobs is pathetic. Grow the h*ll up!

I know people here like to beat on Scrum Masters, but mine does remove impediments and keeps on track, as well as several other teams.