That’s about your team and/or your teams leadership, not scrum.

While true, that cuts both ways, a successful team is not successful because of 'scrum', it's successful because it finds a methodology that works for them, which can be in terms of scrum, but even if no one was chanting Agile buzzwords, that team would still self organize in a similar way, just without the precise buzzwords.

What's obnoxious is that a lot of folks, with a vested interest in, say, consulting, will give credit to "Agile" for teams succeeding and then simultaneously call all failures that ostensibly use Agile but fail "not true Agile". It can be harmless enough when self-organizing, but then it doesn't really matter if it is "big-A Agile" or not. People hung up on the "big-A Agile" may be expecting to cash in with consultancy money, or use it as a club to assert their authority by their self-proclaimed alignment to 'Agile'. They are advocating for Agile, therefore if you challenge anything about their direction, they will invoke the magic Agile word to silence criticism about their methods. Once an organization has "acheived Agile", ironically they frequently close the door on any consideration of methodology reform. "We are running Agile now, whatever you may think we are doing wrong the industry agrees with us because the industry uses Agile, so stop complaining".

So Agile may be technically workable, but the frustration is that it is vague enough to allow anyone to do almost anything and still 'fairly' claim Agile, but as a brand word it confers unreasonable authority for certain folks. As the most prominent brand word in the world of project management, it is further correlated with the 'default' asserted methodology of any crappy group looking toward consultancy/self-help to fix their bad team situation with a bandaid of methodology.