Your Next Scrum Master Should Be Your Manager

Wasn't agree with you before on this. I am now.
Better like this.
Fewer people in the org, will improve effectiveness.
Fewer problem of having unempowered SM, manager can take actions or have a voice that count to change the org.
Mid manager will be enforced to go to SM class to fulfill the accountability, they will open their mind hopefully.
It will probably help to have fewer impostor on the market from consulting firm as manager are rarely extern.

Or you haven't self-managing teams, or is not Scrum.

Self-managing does not mean you don't have a manager. :-)

The proposal for managers to take on Scrum Master roles raises concerns about potential role conflicts and the undermining of Agile principles. Managers, often associated with command-and-control styles, might struggle to embody the servant leadership crucial to Scrum Masters. This approach could challenge team autonomy and the collaborative ethos of Agile, possibly affecting team innovation and psychological safety. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on how this could impact the core principles and dynamics of Agile teams.

I am stuck on the fence. I can see the business rationale for making such a decision, merging the Scrum Master and Delivery Manger roles. In my opinion, this will only be successful if you have the right person in that role. This will require them to be a 'true leader' first rather than a traditional manager.

If this is going to be the way forward this hybrid role is going to be best filled by those who have filled Scrum Masters roles and who embody Scrum values, putting the team at the heart of the delivery. They should be supported in expanding their skills, knowledge and experience (once they have supported the team growth in self-management and have additional capacity) to fulfil the managerial aspects required. This will probably be easier mindset shift compared to traditional managers picking up the softer Scrum Master skills.

Nothing is impossible. The key thing to remember is that every organisation will have their own nuances that will create a broad spectrum of implementations. What works for one will not work for another.

There are so many problems with this proposal I find it shocking that it is being presented as if it were an "accepted solution".
Ryan starts by clarifying several important concepts that can't be passed over.
"Positional Authority" is mentioned, referring to the authority (POWER) that is inherent in a managerial role OVER the team.
"True Leadership" refers to the "inspirational" and "motivational" soft skills that are very difficult to learn and master, which scrum masters need due to their lack of positional authority.
In other words, without positional authority, scrum masters must inspire the team to make improvements through persuasion, reason and experimentation.
Ryan then admits what we all know: "Establishing credibility as a Scrum Master can be tricky." No kidding. And as a highly credentialed "coach", it has been your duty to help scrum masters acquire the skills they need to gain that credibility.
But apparently it is so difficult that he appears to have come to a new conclusion; Since we can't figure out how to coach 'true leadership', let's scrap leadership and revert back to ‘positional authority’.
His suggestion is somewhat radical: “…Stop hiring Scrum Masters and empower delivery managers and directors to take on the Scrum Master accountabilities.”
Below I have synthesized the scattered reasoning and paraphrased it:
1.Accelerating Delivery. “Nothing is more critical in modern organizations than delivering…as soon as… possible.”
2."The ...point of Scrum is getting to DONE."
3.Alignment with the organization’s strategic goals…Help the teams stay aligned.
4.Decision-making power will provide quick decisions around team-members, budget, and impediments.
Do you actually agree with this?
Is speed actually more important than value? Is getting stories DONE more important than outcomes? I thought the point of scrum was delivery of value to the customer. No one would agree that getting worthless code to meet "done" is what scrum is for.
Assuming that “alignment to strategic goals” is a problem, how does replacing a scrum master with a manager or director solve that problem, since it is the Product Owner who is accountable for maximizing value delivery that aligns with corporate strategy?
If Scrum promotes the establishment of persistent teams with stable membership, how often is it that teams fail due to lack of decisions on team-membership? Wasn’t the hiring of the team members already an accountability of the resource manager? If he wasn’t making hiring decisions effectively before, how will the addition of new responsibilities speed up that process?
Under what conditions is the “budget” a problem associated with a scrum master, for which the answer is replacement of the scrum master with a powerful authority to make “quick decisions.” Scrum masters are not accountable for budgeting, so dumping the job onto the manager won’t solve budgeting problems that already existed, will it?
Development managers are often responsible for many technical members and have duties associated with that job. Those people can be spread across a half dozen teams.
So, when you add the scrum master accountabilities to the manager, how many teams do you think he can effectively support in addition to his other duties?
What if the reason there is little cross-functionality or focus on continuous improvement because the manager himself is the one resisting the idea? Afterall, if “getting to DONE” is the most important thing in the world (according to Ryan), then why waste time cross training if skill silos are “more efficient”?
How exactly are these development managers going to lead the training and coaching of the organization on scrum adoption?
Do they have time (much less the expertise) to create training materials, agile runbooks, facilitate Communities of Practice and Scrum of Scrums, Lean Coffees, and other important efforts?
Who do you think you're kidding when you claim that you are "empowering" the Delivery Manager by heaping additional accountabilities onto his/her shoulders?
Accountabilities are a burden, not an empowerment. Every year, leaders are likely to ask their management team: “What do you need from me to help your teams achieve our strategic goals?” Not once in the history of software development has the manager responded “I need more accountabilities!”
As ludicrous as the author’s suggestion is, it is less distressing than observing the applause of “coaches” who are behaving more like trained seals than intelligent proponents of Empirical Process Management.
There is no evidence, and no logical reasoning to support the notion that adding scrum master accountabilities to the already stressful jobs of delivery mangers will solve any of the problems mentioned.
In fact, if we read the market research on reasons for failed agile implementations, none of Ryan’s reasons appear in the survey results. It is a solution in search of a reason, and it comes up short.

Really terrible idea. It reeks of giving in instead of aspiring for something better.

Hi Curtis, you're replied here by pasting a blog post of your own. I'll try to touch on a few of the ideas, but you've left a lot here to be considered. :-)

You raised some interesting questions here: "Is speed actually more important than value? Is getting stories DONE more important than outcomes? I thought the point of scrum was delivery of value to the customer. No one would agree that getting worthless code to meet "done" is what scrum is for."

I think some confusion comes from how you shortened my comment on speed and value: "1. Accelerating Delivery. “Nothing is more critical in modern organizations than delivering…as soon as… possible.”

Here is the actual statement from the post
"Nothing is more critical in modern organizations than delivering product and value as soon as responsibly possible"

We both seem to agree that VALUE is important. I'll also add that "as soon as responsibly possible" is a nod to quality, usability, and utility which also factor into VALUE.

Assuming that “alignment to strategic goals” is a problem, how does replacing a scrum master with a manager or director solve that problem, since it is the Product Owner who is accountable for maximizing value delivery that aligns with corporate strategy?

The Product Owner is accountable for maximizing the value of the product resulting from the work of the Scrum Team. You've added some assumptions at the end that may or may not always be true. If the PO is dialed into corporate strategy then what you've modified could be true. I've honestly seen this play out many different ways and a memeber of management (dev managers/director) could be helpful here.

If Scrum promotes the establishment of persistent teams with stable membership, how often is it that teams fail due to lack of decisions on team-membership? Wasn’t the hiring of the team members already an accountability of the resource manager? If he wasn’t making hiring decisions effectively before, how will the addition of new responsibilities speed up that process?

Persistent teams and stable membership are not required by Scrum. This really isn't a point I raised in my OP.

Under what conditions is the “budget” a problem associated with a scrum master, for which the answer is replacement of the scrum master with a powerful authority to make “quick decisions.” Scrum masters are not accountable for budgeting, so dumping the job onto the manager won’t solve budgeting problems that already existed, will it?

I'm sure many problems will still persist. My point is that decisions could be made faster by a manager: [A manager's] decision-making power means that Scrum Teams benefit from quick decisions around team members, budget, and organizational impediments, expediting their progress toward their goals. The main point here is that having a person with positional authority take on the role of Scrum Master could lead to less waiting for decision about budget, organizational impediments, etc.

So, when you add the scrum master accountabilities to the manager, how many teams do you think he can effectively support in addition to his other duties? What if the reason there is little cross-functionality or focus on continuous improvement because the manager himself is the one resisting the idea? Afterall, if “getting to DONE” is the most important thing in the world (according to Ryan), then why waste time cross training if skill silos are “more efficient”?

I've managed 2 teams and acted as Scrum Master in past roles and it worked well. Some people could do more, pehaps others less. This proposal will not stop bad decisions from being made. There are situations where Scrum Master's resist good practices (cross-training) and a team suffers. IF a manager wants to free themselves up to handle their role as manager and SM they will lean towards cross-training and team-empowerment. Otherwise their job will be difficult. As far as "getting to DONE" being the most important thing in the world, I've already pointed out that you've edited what I wrote and mis-represented my point: "Nothing is more critical in modern organizations than delivering product and value as soon as responsibly possible"

I'm going to stop here as this is turning into another post. Thanks for reading and commenting. I hope these clarificiations are helpful.

I agree that problems like the ones you described could happen. We've also seen these anti-patterns in Scrum Masters. The hope is that times, training, and empiricism help teams improve their practices, work better together, and deliver value for customers.

Thanks for reading and responding. Not all managers are evil. Managers and directors should be a part of higher aspirations.

How does having the manager in this position help delivery? Causing the removal of impediments quicker? I doubt it. I've never seen evidence in a large organization that Sr. Mgr or Director level people can move the organization any more than the people on the line. In fact, in big companies, people four or five levels up will report how helpless they are to change big things that could really help.

My biggest concern is that transparency will be harmed as this is a managed team, not a self-managing team. While most "scrum" teams are managed teams, we would all agree they are doing something more akin to scrum theater than actual scrum. Self-management has benefits, such as transparency due to psychological safety induced through the lack of presence of a manager, the ability to control WIP, and sizing work or trying new techniques in the process.

Another worry - the PO is overridden by a higher-ranking manager playing SM who basically turns the team from what was intended to be a business product development team back into an IT controlled team. I mean, if you want to get rid of the SM, put the team under the PO, not under an IT manager who never studied marketing.

Hey, it's great if management learns to do solid scrum mastering. But putting them in this role feels like large company with slowing market increase and no new products trying to do cost control by eliminating a position they don't respect. I am highly, highly dubious that these managers are going to become scrum/agile experts. I would bet considerable money that the the scrum manager does more damage to the team's agile potential than an actual scrum expert.

A grand experiment is playing out in the world: Can the Fortune 500 actually be agile, or does being publicly traded block a company from doing the right things and doom them to mediocre Taylorist management?

I'm not fond of the idea of the person responsible for your performance evaluations being the person responsible for providing a psychologically safe space. I don't know if it's possible to have a conversation about performance fears and struggles with a manager and them not factor it into your review. If you could change the performance evaluation/salary adjustment model so that the manager was more of a coach than evaluator, then sure. I don't know how that would change compensation or who would be responsible for doling out increases.

That said - human beings are capable of doing just about anything, but not capable of doing just about everything. You don't need a BA, a developer, a tester, a project manager, a scrum master and a product owner. One person is capable of doing all of that, but is that really beneficial? Are we at a point where we are putting people into managerial/leadership positions with a real desire to be in those positions and get the necessary skill training to thrive in those roles? Ideally, I feel there is some genuine crossover between a scrum master and a manager role, but I'm not convinced merging them would be the way to go. I've seen testers eliminated and devs expected to do the testing, but I can't say that it's a better model. I'd rather have 2 people who love their work than 2 people who love half of it and hate the other half.

This suggestion sounds more like a cost cutting measure than anything. Perhaps if we can find a way to change corporate organizational behaviors enough, teams will not need a scrum master because they will be capable of handling the majority of the role by splitting the pieces among the team. That would imply that people who traditionally don't steer toward interests in human behavior cultivate an interest in it :)

Personally, I think there is a much bigger problem in corporate work than the scrum master role.

Thank you for your thoughtful response to my blog post. I appreciate your concerns and perspective on the idea of managers and directors taking on Scrum Master accountabilities. Let's address some of the key points you've raised:

Psychological Safety vs. Performance Evaluation: You're absolutely right to highlight the potential conflict between creating a psychologically safe space and performing evaluations. The essence of Scrum and Agile is to foster an environment where team members can openly discuss their fears and struggles without fearing negative repercussions on their performance reviews. This requires a significant shift in the traditional manager's role – from evaluator to coach and mentor. The idea isn't to blur these lines but to redefine them in a way that supports Agile values and principles.

Skillset and Role Overlap: Your point about the versatility of human capabilities is well-taken. While it's true that one person could potentially take on multiple roles, it's not always beneficial or effective. The goal of proposing that managers and directors take on Scrum Master accountabilities is not to overload them with tasks but to integrate the mindset and skills of a Scrum Master into leadership roles. This integration can enhance the overall agility and responsiveness of the team.

The Real Desire and Training for Leadership Roles: I completely agree that not everyone in a managerial position might have the intrinsic motivation or the necessary skills to thrive in an Agile environment. This is where training and development play a crucial role. Organizations need to invest in equipping their leaders with the skills and mindset required to support and guide Agile teams effectively.

Cost Cutting vs. Enhancing Agility: The suggestion to have managers and directors take on Scrum Master accountabilities is not about cost-cutting. It's about embedding Agile thinking and practices at all levels of the organization. By doing so, we can create a more cohesive and agile culture, where the principles of Scrum are not just confined to teams but are a part of the organizational DNA.

The evolution of the Scrum Master role is an ongoing discussion in the Agile community. Your idea of teams eventually being able to self-manage to the extent that they might not need a dedicated Scrum Master is an interesting one and is worth another blog post.

Thanks again for being here and for your comments.

--Ryan

Hi Rob,
It's great to hear from you. You raised some important points about the practicalities and potential pitfalls of this approach in large organizations.

You question whether senior managers or directors can effectively remove impediments and aid delivery more than line-level employees. The idea here is not that higher-ups are inherently more effective, but that their involvement in Scrum processes can bridge the gap between the strategic and operational levels. By understanding and participating in Scrum practices, they can potentially leverage their positional authority to remove obstacles that are otherwise insurmountable at the team level.

The worry that transparency will suffer in a managed team structure is significant. The role of a manager or director acting as a Scrum Master should not be to manage the team in the traditional sense, but rather to support and facilitate its self-management and autonomy. This is a shift from traditional management styles and requires a deep understanding of and commitment to Agile principles.

Your concern that a higher-ranking manager could overpower the PO, thereby skewing the team's focus, is a real risk. The intent of advocating for managers to take on Scrum Master responsibilities is not to diminish the PO's role but to create a balanced dynamic where the PO and the team are supported in their efforts to deliver value.

The skepticism about managers becoming effective in Scrum roles is understandable, especially in large corporations where Agile transformation can be challenging. However, this proposal is rooted in the belief that with proper training and a genuine commitment to learning and practicing Agile principles, managers can positively contribute to a team's Agile journey.

Your final point touches on a broader question about the agility of large, publicly traded companies. This is indeed a grand experiment, and part of this exploration is finding ways to integrate Agile methodologies into different levels of an organization, including management.

I'm hopeful we get some good case studies and stories about an approach like this. Thanks for being here, Rob. It's always great to hear from you.

--Ryan

What you are suggesting sounds like a fundamental change in the way people approach and behave at work. Organizations are made of people, and people create the rules, processes and culture. I do believe if we can move from a transactional aspect of trading services for money to more of a purpose-based or customer-centric version of performing activities which give us some intrinsic value while at the same time providing a value to others, then everything above can happen.

At this time though, I'm of the opinion that people who aren't inclined to want to change the way we work would see it as a cost-cutting opportunity to reduce payroll at the expense of the long-term health of the company.

Your points 2-4 seem pretty straight-forward. The first one though poses an interesting condition. I'd like to hear more on how you see that relationship working for an organization? I'm 100% in on a manager role being more of a coach and mentor, with their responsibility being to find a way for the employee to succeed within the company (or, if all fails, help them succeed outside the company). However, how do you see salary increases functioning in that model? I've seen team compensation discussed before, but all the organizations I've seen are still in traditional compensation packages that are all about extrinsic reward scenarios pitting employees against one another.

Our perspective is the same. A manager stepping into the SM role can in fact be pretty powerful, assuming that they properly undertake the role. With awareness of the pitfalls and proper guidance, training, and the right approach, this _can_ work.

I should know. I did it.

25+ years of experience in software development, project management, coding, testing, designing, training, etc... plus all of my connections with leaders and my previous position was a path to many agile abilities which some consider to be unnatural.

Great care must be taken to communicate to leaders that this is not an opportunity to simply put delivery managers back in charge of pushing work and making all of the decisions and remind them that the benefits they seek are hiding behind self-managing, cross-functional teams.

Great discussion, my friend. This looks like a written defense of a dissertation!

-Rob

Thank you Ryan for being bold and bringing in new ideas and not staying stale!
Many thoughts came onto my mind while reading the post. Few might sound controversial.
A Scrum Master role was designed to have no 'power' which other leadership roles have. It seems like an acknowledged issue in the blog.
It feels like your proposal is to finally give that power to Scrum Masters by....getting rid of them and shifting their accountabilities to those who have the power.
This is just an observation on what I felt.
Now, can a manager or a Director be a mentor, facilitator, coach, a delivery lead, etc? Of course!
Does it mean it is the right thing to add to their accountabilities just because they have the decision-power & are capable of doing it?

An observation. In the modern organizations, a SM role is way outside of how it was defined in the Scrum Guide. So, when we talk about a Scrum Master, it is not a role that just teaches SCRUM and only knows/enforces adherence to SCRUM.
It is a role that is a Domain Knowledge/Subject Matter Expert who leads an agile team towards best/more efficient ways of delivering a value through building Teams with internal Trust. Thirst for improvements, quality products, quality of processes and so much more. So, naturally, SMs become Team & delivery leads. Also, as a good Scrum Master you would talk about a value that your Team brings in the light of the Organization's strategic goals.

So, why not give the power to the Scrum Masters that they lack just because their titles are "Scrum Master" and not Delivery Manager/Director?
Scrum Masters grow their mastery over developing/educating themselves. A good SM can make a huge difference in a Team &Organization. To throw away such powerful leaders (servant leaders) feels like a waste of talent.
So, a counter proposal - your next (Delivery) Manager should be a Scrum Master with a decision making power.

Tobias here checking in (4-year SM).

Given our current economic environment, I think this is a great discussion to be having. I think there's an argument missing, though. If you're saying organizations should stop hiring scrum masters, then why? Is the role not working? Are you suggesting scrum masters don't have enough authority? I've seen it. If that's what you're arguing, then I agree, a scrum master with positional authority will be more effective (assuming they have good intentions).

Nevertheless, I'm worried about organizations doing away with scrum masters. It is happening. Central to my concern is my disagreement with your statement that "The bottom line is that the point of Scrum is getting to DONE". I believe the Scrum Guide states that "Scrum is a lightweight framework that helps people, teams and organizations generate value ". This illustrates my key concern. Without full-time scrum masters, I worry that organizations will deliver a lot of things that aren't actually valuable. And they may do so very quickly.

I've been thinking about this for the past few weeks, and I have both positive and negative thoughts on it.

I have been in this situation before and it was poor. The IT director/scrum master started dictating the work, directing how many story points to assign work (yes, trash), and there was no self-management in the team. Where the team may usually have the option to question a scrum master, this was not the case for us.

I think this can work for organisations in which agility is strongly established and teams are respected to do the right thing, so when things do start going wrong and nerves get shaky, the reaction is to not flip back to the command-control mindset. Yes, this can happen in any case, but with a strong scrum master to fend off that sort of interference, the team can be protected. How long for? Well, perhaps not forever, but maybe long enough to weather the storm. With a certain type of manager or director in that role, or an organisation in which agility is newer and still viewed with suspicion, that's much harder.

I believe organisational change is imperative to establishing scrum rather than just adopting it, and that needs to be driven from the top. If management practice what they preach, they should be capable of trusting teams to the do the right thing, focusing their efforts instead on the health of the whole organisation and the removal of larger impediments out of the control of individual teams.

What I'm missing here is a description of the role of manager or director. What powers/backgoround/focus should she have?
Scrum Master is well described role. If you read the Scrum Giude, you know what's what. Manager/Director are different roles in every company. Does he have an own budget? Does he have hiring/firing power? Does he decide about the salary? And many more questions.

So instead of talking about if a manager should become a Scrum Master (or fullfill Scrum Master accountabilities), I would prefer about talking about what specific powers or authorities could be added to the role of Scrum Master and to what benefit.