As it is said Scrum Master never enforce, how can Scrum Master ensure scrum processes in team without enforcing

The Scrum Master ensures only one thing: "that all Scrum events take place and are positive, productive, and stay within the timebox."

The Scrum Master does not have to ensure that Scrum is in place. The Scrum Master should help all stakeholders, including the team, understand the value of agility and empiricism, as well as methods for achieving them. If Scrum is not the best fit for the team or organization, then I would expect the Scrum Master to acknowledge that and help find the best methods.

If the Scrum Master offers appropriate coaching in self-organization and self-management in a professional organization, then professionals should want to find and follow the ways of working that make the most sense in that context.

It's a matter of presuppositions.

Scrum as is, is a free-floating ideal model of something.

In reality though, one requires some power & influence to implement things, not just talking around the place and waiting for something to happen, maybe it was like that 10 years ago when some people paid for such.

So I get back to Schwaber's book Agile Project Management with Scrum which states that SM is usually taking the role of Scrum Project Manager with necessary powers & influences.

Otherwise it may be a rather frustrating job, where one can be criticized by anyone, but not being able to criticize and act upon anyone else.



 

A good Scrum Master will reveal even if they don't resolve. It's people"s understanding of Scrum that a Scrum Master will manage...not what they actually do. This extends not just to the team, but across the whole organization and the value chain.

Once people understand Scrum they will be in a position to self manage effectively, and to obtain better outcomes.

This is one of the more frustrating things for most people with Scrum.  But one thing I want to point out that you said. You mention that one should not enforce processes and then ask what should be done when people don't follow them.  That is the problem. 

The Scrum framework does not have processes.  It has some suggested events, 3 sets of accountabilities and a framework within those things will help an organization deliver incremental value on emergent problems. It is not intended to have specific process. It is not intended to work for all situations. It is not intended to be the same everywhere it is used. One can argue that there are some "best practices" as there are with any kind of framework but even those are loose and depends on the situation in which the framework is being used. 

If SM reports to their reporting manager it is taken as SM is not capable of making things done.

This is because the reporting manager does not understand what the Scrum framework is.  It is because the framework does not take into account command-control organizational structures.  Yes, it can see a bit whimsical at times but that is because it doesn't focus on how many tasks are done. It doesn't focus on how many times a developer checks in code. It doesn't focus on whether deadlines. It focuses on the continuous incremental value delivery to stakeholders that allow for inspection, adaption and more value. The stakeholders are expected to be part of the flow and provide continuous feedback.  If you know what needs to be built and when it has to be delivered, the Scrum framework is not the best choice for you.  Sure, you can use timeboxed segments, you can get everyone together every day to do a status meeting.  But you aren't doing Sprints and a Daily Scrum as they are defined in the Scrum Guide.

Just because your organization chose to use the words Scrum Master for your job title and to say that they are following Scrum, does not mean that they are using the framework as described in the Scrum Guide.  They are using some of the terminology and loosely using the concepts but they aren't embracing the Scrum framework.

I have worked in places like yours. I have also worked in places that truly understood the framework and used successfully.  I have also worked in organizations that used hybrids of the framework successfully.  I even worked at one place where two groups used the Scrum framework while the rest of the engineering organization used waterfall.  That was because the two groups that used Scrum were working on new technologies to build new products while the rest of the groups maintained existing products and there wasn't as much uncertainty or discovery needed. 

@Thomas said 

If Scrum is not the best fit for the team or organization, then I would expect the Scrum Master to acknowledge that and help find the best methods.

@Ian said

A good Scrum Master will reveal even if they don't resolve. It's people"s understanding of Scrum that a Scrum Master will manage...not what they actually do. This extends not just to the team, but across the whole organization and the value chain.

I wholeheartedly agree with both of them.

It’s definitely a tough balance. I think the key is in influencing rather than enforcing. A good Scrum Master helps the team understand why the processes exist and how they benefit the team. If people see the value, they’re more likely to follow. When there’s resistance, facilitation, coaching, and open dialogue can go a long way. And if the team still resists, working with leadership to create a supportive environment—not as a tattletale but as a coach needing support—can help shift things. You're not alone in this struggle!