Under any other circumstances expecting to get a daily update from developers would be considered micromanagement.

That's not true. I'm not even sure if we are defining micromanaging properly here as there are ways to micromanage without requiring a daily update from developers.

A Scrum standup is not for management. It's for developers and by developers. It's where developers get in sync and plan what to do next, who needs help and who can provide help.

It is meant to go quickly, a few minutes per developer to sync with the other developers and then call it quits. I've work in actual Scrum and Kanban teams doing real standups, and those have been the most productive exercises in my 25 years in software.

Problem is, many people hijack the term 'standup' to conduct an actual 30-min or even hour-long meeting. Now, a 30-60 min daily meeting can be valid and useful in some organizations and contexts.

The problem here is two-fold:

1. meetings that are not useful in proportion to their lengths of time and frequency,

and

2. people taking those meetings and calling them "standup".

As Volaire allegedly said once : "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms."

Under any other circumstances expecting to get a daily update from developers would be considered micromanagement.

That's not true. I'm not even sure if we are defining micromanaging properly here as there are ways to micromanage without requiring a daily update from developers.

A Scrum standup is not for management. It's for developers and by developers. It's where developers get in sync and plan what to do next, who needs help and who can provide help.

It is meant to go quickly, a few minutes per developer to sync with the other developers and then call it quits. I've work in actual Scrum and Kanban teams doing real stand-ups, and those have been the most productive exercises in my 25 years in software.

Problem is, many people hijack the term 'standup' to conduct an actual 30 min or even hour-long meeting. Now, a 30-60 min daily meeting can be valid and useful in some organizations and contexts.

The problem here is two-fold:

1. meetings that are not useful in proportion to their lengths of time and frequency,

and

2. people taking those meetings and calling them "standup".

As Voltaire allegedly said once : "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms."

Under any other circumstances expecting to get a daily update from developers would be considered micromanagement.

That's not true. I'm not even sure if we are defining micromanaging properly here as there are way to micromanage without requiring a daily update from developers.

A scrum standup is not for management. It's for developers and by developers. It's where developers get in sync and plan what to do next, who needs help and who can provide help.

It is meant to go quickly, a few minutes per developer to sync with the other developers and then call it quits. I've work in actual scrum and kanban teams doing real standups, and those have been the most productive exercises in my 25 years in software.

Problem is, many people hijack the term standup to conduct an actual 30-min, hour-long meeting. Now a 30-60 min daily meeting can be valid and useful in some organizations and contexts.

The problem here is two-fold:

1. meetings that are not useful in proportion to their lengths of time and frequency,

and

2. people taking those meetings and calling them "standup".

As Volaire allegedly said once : "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms."

Under any other circumstances expecting to get a daily update from developers would be considered micromanagement.

That's not true. I'm not even sure if we are defining micromanaging properly here as there are ways to micromanage without requiring a daily update from developers.

A Scrum standup is not for management. It's for developers and by developers. It's where developers get in sync and plan what to do next, who needs help and who can provide help.

It is meant to go quickly, a few minutes per developer to sync with the other developers and then call it quits. I've work in actual Scrum and Kanban teams doing real standups, and those have been the most productive exercises in my 25 years in software.

Problem is, many people hijack the term 'standup' to conduct an actual 30-min or even hour-long meeting. Now, a 30-60 min daily meeting can be valid and useful in some organizations and contexts.

The problem here is two-fold:

1. meetings that are not useful in proportion to their lengths of time and frequency,

and

2. people taking those meetings and calling them "standup".

As Volaire allegedly said once : "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms."