For example, a company I worked for a few months back paid a management consultant tens of thousands of pounds to help them improve the productivity of the engineering team. As a result various new ways of working were introduced, one of which was a very strict implementation of scrum.
To oversee these new ways of working several scrum masters were hired at the cost of several hundreds of thousands of pounds in salaries.
At no point during this process was the engineering team themselves consulted so of course the whole thing was a nightmare and significantly reduced our productivity as we were now spending half of our time attending unneeded scrum meetings and being chased by scrum masters. Actual problems we faced such as needing to support legacy system and the constant bug fixing of crappy code we were forced to ship were never discussed.
In my experience scrum works well as a rough guide for how to manage a modern software team, but it rarely works when it's done bureaucratically and introduced by people higher up in the organisation who have little understanding of the actual problems faced by the engineering team. Rarely have I found scrum to be the core problem. It's usually that the people who introduce scrum care more about introducing scrum than something that works.
My experience of scrum in small companies, especially small companies with a software focus is far more positive. When companies are able to be flexible and avoid dogmatically implementing scrum it can work well, but I've certainly shared your frustration several times in my career.