As SM, my manager wants more control from me.
I work as a SM of a SCRUM team for 1 1/2 years. We are a feature developer team in a large SAFelE project, which is quite chaotic (delays are usual in major releases, global KPIs are freqently not met etc.), but our team has some motivated and talented devs, so we are consistently in the top 20-30% (as far as local KPIs tell) when we compare team effectiveness. Since the beginnings, I always encouraged the team to be proactive, autonomous (wrt. to planning for example). Therefore, the team is mostly autonomous, organized, (rarely need my action to get something done). Yet my immediate manager increasingly pressurizes me to "take control in the operative tasks", actively work in the sprint plannings etc. This seems to contradict my philosophy, since I always strived to create a team that can self-organize and proactively solve its problems. Do I see it wrong? What should I do to persuade my manager to see the state of the my team as something to be proud of (autonomy, self-consciousness).
Why do *you* need a manager? What strange forces are at work here?
Steven, I want to be clear. There is nothing in Scrum that prevents an organization having extra accountabilities, job titles, or processes. But equally, I read a lot of things in your original post that sound like red flags I've encountered with other people who are using Scrum in name only.
To benefit from Scrum, you need to be in a position to adapt, and that can mean removing old assumed norms and structures from a more traditional organization.
My advice to you — even if you just do it privately — would be to read the Scrum Guide, then comb through your post, and see how many things you can identify that you have described, but are not a part of Scrum.
Some can be helpful, and some can be harmful; so a good follow up exercise would be to consider why each one is not described in the Scrum Guide, and the effect that it can have, when used in combination with Scrum.
We are a feature developer team in a large SAFelE project
Does SAFe truly advocate creating a "Done" Increment that is potentially releasable at scale, every Iteration (using SAFe terminology)? Aren't we already facing an issue there? Is the Scrum Master role the same in SAFe as it is described in the Scrum Guide?
Based on that are the team(s) truly autonomous? Since you mentioned SAFe, are all the other teams working towards the same "Product"?
but our team has some motivated and talented devs, so we are consistently in the top 20-30% (as far as local KPIs tell) when we compare team effectiveness.
Why is the success of the other teams not as important if all the teams (at scale) are working towards the same thing i..e the Product?
These are the things I interpreted from your message (I could be wrong) but in that sense I agree with Simon.
This is a common occurrence. Scrum Masters are being molded into project managers and told to crack the whip at daily stand ups. If somebody doesn't meet their goals, you shame them and then run reports so leaderships knows that work is being done faster. Let me be pragmatic here. Your manager is likely not going to change their mind and you will need to make a decision on whether to do as you're told or risk losing your job.
Does your organization and the management understand why you want Scrum Teams and the paradigm shift in mindset that comes with it?