If the teams themselves don't want a standup, you're probably gonna get a "dead standup". The actually-useful-to-the-team part of the standup is something a team that's been exposed to such will probably self-organize without some not-on-the-team leader or manager telling them to, if they feel they need it for their situation/project. I'd say imposed standups are only useful for teams that aren't already familiar with them (the done-right version of them, that is) so may need an introduction to understand that it might be something they want to do, or as a simple micromanaging status meeting under a trendier name.
In my experience, if a team doesn't _want_ a standup (or some status update from their team members), they probably need rotated to something new. No process, or person, or tool can make a team member care about their project or peers.
Or maybe as part of their normal interactions they already get all the status updates they could possibly need? Or maybe these updates are tracked in some other way (tickets and the like)?
That's not the same as "not caring about their project". I care about my project, but I don't want to hear 30+ status updates for tasks which are progressing nominally.
I do not agree with this sentiment but that's okay. As I said, in my experience, what you're saying is absolutely untrue, but I'm speaking purely from my own experience.
