Authority of Scrum Master

I would suggest reading up on what Servant-Leadership means.  In that model, "authority" is not used and instead "influence" is more prevalent. 

...he could just set up this dis-liked 4 hours Sprint Review or even change the composition of a dysfunctional team?

Instead of just setting up the event, a Scrum Master will help the Scrum Team to understand the purpose and appreciate the benefit that the event provides by facilitating the event to stay on the purpose for which it exists. In other words, you focus more on correcting the "dis-liked" part.  As for changing the composition of the team, again you would instead work the team to help them understand the dysfunction and let them decide what to do about it.

A good successful Scrum Master will very seldom be recognized as being involved in decisions. You will also get very little recognition in general.  A lot of what you do will be subtle.  However, don't underestimate the importance of subtle manipulation.  I will admit to doing some of that to get people to come around to appreciation.  

Let's take this case: what is a Scrum Master going to do if the impediments are located within the Scrum Team? Would he ever be able to become active in a way that he could just set up this dis-liked 4 hours Sprint Review or even change the composition of a dysfunctional team?

If there are dysfunctions within the Scrum Team, the Scrum Master acting as a servant-leader will foresee these issues, and then bring transparency (shine a light) on the dysfunctions for everyone on the Scrum Team.  Often it is said that the Scrum Master is a mirror to the team.  Rather than bring this up at the Sprint Review, the Scrum Master will most likely raise the dysfunctions at the Sprint Retrospective, using the art of the open-ended question to see if the team will self-organize and take action.  This is where Scrum values of openness and courage can drive trust, because without it transparency cannot be effective.

Let's take this case: what is a Scrum Master going to do if the impediments are located within the Scrum Team? Would he ever be able to become active in a way that he could just set up this dis-liked 4 hours Sprint Review or even change the composition of a dysfunctional team? Or is the principle of "self-organized" teams stronger than the tasks the Scrum Master has to fulfill?

How important might it be for a Scrum Master to tell how self-organizing a team currently is, and to modulate his or her actions accordingly?

You don't need to be an authority to have influence, as anyone within the team, the Scrum Master has the right to propose improvements and implement them together with the team. My experience is that enforcing anything only goes skin deep, or to the eye, while convincing the team to change behavior and challenge themselves to grow is a genuine improvement.

First, thanks a lot for your responses. 

I really like the idea of "shining a light" on the dysfunctions in the team and to enhance transparency by naming the elefant in the room so the team actually can work on their problems. 

How important might it be for a Scrum Master to tell how self-organizing a team currently is, and to modulate his or her actions accordingly?

I think it is very important to modulate the Scrum Master's actions accordingly to the niveau of self-organization of the team. It's the degree of intervention in extreme situations I'm still not sure about.

One extreme would be a Scrum Team that is not willing to perform Scrum. They just don't want to do a Retrospective. Who would be the person to tell them to actually do Scrum? After reading your comments I would say it's not the Scrum Master as he would never enforce Scrum and its values. So would you say his job is to try his best to teach the team the benefits of Scrum?

So would you say his job is to try his best to teach the team the benefits of Scrum?

None of us could have said that better.  You are absolutely correct.  

You have the Scrum theory right this.  Scrum is based on an organization where all "management" is replaced by "servant-leadership".  So there isn't any "you must do" there is only "you realize how this would benefit?".  (I simplify that considerably.) 

Now let's talk reality.  I'm going to make an assumption and feel free to ignore this.  I assuming that in your company there still exists a hierarchical management structure. At some level in that structure is an authority figure that is saying Scrum is to be used.  And I'll stop there.

In my opinion in case when team is sceptical about scrum there is little what scrum master can do about it. It is the role of management to 

1) announce the agile way of working

2) provide education to the team members

3) convince workers to this methodology

After all even when this is done there is no gurantee that it will work. Secondly, maybe scrum is not good for everything. Even without scrum people can work. Also when using scrum the effects could be poor. So you should just do what you can and keep some freedom in it.

I am enthusiastic about scrum but I cannot work this way if no one else in the team want this. Having standups is not scrum. Having process master is not scrum. Having planning meeting or retrospective does not make scrum.

Scrum appears when team want to do something together and when they want to do something better than before. When they discuss and they are engaged. You cannot force anyone to that attitude.

Regards,

In my opinion in case when team is sceptical about scrum there is little what scrum master can do about it. 

Why can't a Scrum Master be a change agent?  I would expect nothing less.

Scrum appears when team want to do something together and when they want to do something better than before. When they discuss and they are engaged. You cannot force anyone to that attitude.

I agree - the Scrum Master can help create such an environment.

Can be. Scrum master has some limits, though. Remember prophets whose God was sending to people and no one listened. How much frustration you can stand ?

How much frustration you can stand?

Frustration is a common Scrum Master experience; however, a dedicated Scrum Master will continue to not only promote Scrum, but also act as a change agent dedicated to improving the team and the organization, despite any resistance.

I think you are expecting too much from scrum master. In my opinion scrum master is normal worker as any other in the team. Just additionally has the responsibility of organizing meetings and helping in solving the impediments. I would rotate this role within the team.  

In his original question Sebastian proposed to organize "this dis-liked 4 hours Sprint Review" as a punishment to the team which do not want to listen to scrum master :) This can be treated as a joke and not as a serious work solution. Work according to agile principles is not a punishment. If no one in given organization believe it then it is better to work in another way - whatever is suitable and give results.

Marek, you may benefit from familiarizing yourself with the Scrum Master section of the Scrum Guide.   Organizing meetings (as needed) and helping to resolve impediments is but a small portion of a Scrum Master's responsibilities.

To note:

The Scrum Master is responsible for promoting and supporting Scrum as defined in the Scrum Guide. Scrum Masters do this by helping everyone understand Scrum theory, practices, rules, and values.

The Scrum Master is a servant-leader for the Scrum Team. The Scrum Master helps those outside the Scrum Team understand which of their interactions with the Scrum Team are helpful and which aren’t. The Scrum Master helps everyone change these interactions to maximize the value created by the Scrum Team.

This is not "expecting too much" from a Scrum Master.   On the contrary, promoting Scrum, acting as a change agent, and making transparent what is helping and impeding Scrum is exactly what a Scrum Master is asked to do.

And in my opinion, rotating the Scrum Master role within a team may be effective with a very mature Scrum Team, and potentially harmful otherwise.