Scrum Mastery is more than just Agile coaching

Wow! This is the ultimate guide to understand the role of the Scrum Master! Master the topics aforementioned when you will be a great Scrum Master! Congratulations for the post, this is exactly what people need to read in order to understand that Scrum Master and the Agile Coach are not different at all.

Thanks @disqus_NTGjDhYlTn:disqus for the compliment. That is how we position the Scrum Master at Scrum.org, not different to Agile Coach.

Overall, I agree with much of this post. But I do have some issues with some of the conclusions drawn in the closing.

I agree that the Scrum Master needs to serve the whole organization. However, the knowledge, skills, and tendencies are different depending on who you are leading. In order to lead, one needs some form of power. Some forms of power isn't compatible with agile and lean thinking. Scrum Masters should rely on expert, informational. and legitimate power - that is, a Scrum Master should achieve their ability to lead and influence by demonstrating experience and skills, using knowledge and information (and applying their experience and skills), and ultimately being recognized by the team or organization as a leader (which aligns nicely with the self-organization aspects of Scrum). In order to be seen as an expert and be able to act on information effectively, I believe that you are most effective when you come from the background of the people that you are leading. Even the skills necessary to work across multiple teams aren't necessarily the same set of skills needed to coach and facilitate one team.

I believe that expecting a Scrum Master to be effective at coaching, mentoring, or facilitating a Scrum Team in a particular environment, but also across other departments and working at an organizational level is too much. No individual can have expertise on so many different topics such that they can be seen by others as an effective leader. That doesn't mean that they can't contribute to these areas,. At times, a Scrum Master may need to work outside of their areas of expertise for any number of reasons. And when this happens, a Scrum Master will likely be less effective at driving change.

As an aside, my personal belief in the reason for the existence of terms like "Agile Coach" is the need for organizations to establish a career path or to recognize people working in different contexts (for example, at an executive level versus an "in the trenches" level). Personally, I find both "Scrum Master" and "Agile Coach" to be terrible organizational roles since they give deference to both Scrum and Agile. I believe that we should focus on tailoring the processes to the context and to draw and knowledge from any number of sources, including those that aren't typically seen as lean or agile. We should be pragmatic, not dogmatic.

I agree that the two roles scrum master and agile coach are very alike, we use and need more of less the same skillset. I also agree that the name of the roles are a bit... unlucky perhaps? I don't like to be boxed in, forced to chose between agile, lean, scrum, kanban, or devops. Pragmatism is a good thing. I have been both scrum master and agile coach and for me the difference lies in the independence of the role we call agile coach. I do not belong to or serve a specific team. I can help them all, and the organization around them. Sometimes a scrum master will ask my advice, and sometime I ask for theirs. There is no hierarcy between us, no dependance. I can coach the teams managers, and their managers. It is relaxing for all of us that I belong to a different part of the organization. I think a scrum master who masters all the things you describe, well exceeds the average agile coach I have met, including myself, but it is a beautiful goal. I do however belive that my years as a a scrummaster, product owner, classical projekt manager, programmer and... all helped prepare me for the job I have now. Helping organizations and people to find their way in change.

Hi Joshua, I think the community is coming from the old practice of putting too much emphasis on the designation or the role. I would say we need to start working on the competencies and skillsets for the job at hand, rather than on the role. Whether you are a Scrum Master, Team Lead or Agile Coach, if you are helping the teams and organisations moving to new ways of working, you would need pretty much similar skillsets. But what is also happening of late, is people claiming to be coaches by just attending two days of Scrum Master training, which is a farce. While the two day training is important, it does not make you a coach. Each individual should take on a journey of self transformation to be able to lead transformations. Therefore, context is very important when we are discussing the difference or similarities between Agile coach and Scrum Master.

I agree with you. As for me, I just like how Scrum Guide provides guidance on what competencies that a Scrum Master need to have. And I don't see it is a lower rank role than Agile Coach. I also focus more on the principles behind Scrum rather than the mechanics. I agree that mastery does not come instantly after attending a 2-days Scrum Master training.

Thanks for great blog post Joshua,

I will turn to it for inspiration whenever I am wondering what my next step in my Scrum Master Journey should be.

Awesome Daniel. Keep improving your mastery. It is a great journey.

I believe the idea of a SM being some what lesser to an Agile Coach is an offshoot of the depiction of the career roadmap for the Scrum Master. I have seen couple of images and articles on the net which state that one of the paths to becoming an Agile Coach is by being in the role of Scrum Master for a team; then start mentoring couple of folks/teams on Scrum and you become Scrum Coach; then you start adding other ways of being agile to your toolkit and that's when you become an Agile Coach.

I totally agree that a Scrum Master has to already know all this that's how s/he might be able to help everyone to get on a journey of continuous improvement.

"Scrum is just empiricism, lean thinking and bottom-up collective intelligence so Scrum Master is the master of empiricism, lean thinking and bottom-up collective intelligence". Inspiring lines, never thought this way. Thanks a ton for this wisdom Joshua.

but the Scrum Master role should be just a skillset embodied and owned by the team, likely as a rotating role. I realize that as a previous Scrum Master I definitely helped teach teams autonomous thinking and scrum skills but I also made them dependent on me. That's why I no longer hire SM's and I don't do their job either, the team owns it and they are better off for it. You seem to have a bias against the Agile Coach (AC). The scrum master, if a full time position is a master by definition but does not have as wide of scope as an AC, typically. Those who do often become AC's. Agility is more important than Scrum for certain. As an Agile Coach with 6 teams and no SM's it's critical to instill knowledge, learning moments and light weight expectations with teams. Most SM's IMHO wouldn't be able to do this if they tried to "master" all the items you mention above.

I think you are thinking of it incorrectly, it's not a lesser role, but it does have less responsibility and coverage than that of an AC. Just as a Program Manager is to a Project Manager. or a Tech Lead to an Engineering Manager.

Hi Jim. We acknowledge that many people see the Scrum Master is only responsible for one development team and does not go beyond just Scrum itself hence this role is usually rotated within the team. But this is not what we at Scrum.org teach our students in PSM course. The Scrum Master is also responsible to coach the organisation and the PO and need to master the stances mentioned in the blog. Yes you are right. It is almost impossible to master all the items mentioned in this blog. I am not sure why the role of Scrum Master is downgraded by the community.

Hi Jim. We at Scrum.org believe the Scrum Master should also be doing whatever Agile Coach is doing. The Scrum Master is no different to Agile Coach and does not have narrower coverage than an Agile Coach.

likely because the Scrum.org peeps still think that the AC is not a real position. I used many AC responsibilities because of what I learned as a Program Manager, Scrum.org is just playing catch up. By definition the SM has a more narrow focus. An SM is not an AC. That's like saying a tech lead is the same as the VP of engineering.

but they aren't really alike, one is about the ORG, the other is about the team. The SM is not an organizational coach, when you meet 90% you'll realize they are more like tech leads (sadly) a coach, is a visionary (hopefully) who can guide the business and IT to keep getting better. An SM should be focused on Product and Team accomplishments.

A great Scrum Master know that only optimising the team is sub-optimal hence he/she should know coaching the whole organisation and at executive level. In fact this is written in Scrum Guide. But most people in the industry assume that Scrum Master is a team level coach.

There is also Agility Guide (https://www.scrum.org/resou... that explains Scrum Master role at organisation level.

"By definition the SM has a more narrow focus."

And what's the definition of AC then? Haven't found one. We can make any funny comparison based on our biases, worldviews and so on(mostly our position in the company tbh), but if there is no good source of definition other than some imagined one then that's jusk asking for arguments and quarrels.

What we have seen (this is our observation):
- AC is a next step on the career path of SM bias
- AC position is glorified and full of splendor, SM works in the trenches and gets his/her hands dirty
- SM is below AC in hierarchy - Barry Oveerem debunked that myth in one of his notes
- people without any certifications (Scrum.org, Scrum Alliance, other) call themselves Agile Coaches and tend to know most about Scrum and other approaches. Ah, also tend to lessen or even outright negate the value of certifications becuase they like to think that their "knowledge" comes from some mystical "experience" that you cannot measure. You can do things for some long time and don't even know that you're doing them the wrong way
- SM should evolve into AC as soon as his man-days of experience counter hits 2 years. Otherwise s/he is a lousy SM obviously. Right?
- SM is some funny, exotic title for a coffee clerk/support staff that is expected to use powers of coaching to make a change, without having any real power in a company (SM is NOT a managerial position bias)
- SM is under project managers in hierarchy
- SM is a project manager with a funny title
- SM is a person that we hire to be a living proof that we are Agile/Scrum friendly now(though we still ask for money on regular basis and tend to work in silos, but hey, we've hired SM thus are so AGILE!)
- coaching is somehow enforced by organization's culture/hierarchy, like having a regular coaching sessions similar to 5'o clock tea time. More like a confessional, really.
- SM is viewed as cheesy and works only on Team level, as higher ups are not for kids, you know?

PMI and other companies try to bite some part of that Agile cake by presenting their own certifications such as PMI-ACP, so now any project manager may call himself AGILE project manager. Maybe they should offer a program on how to manage Scrum Masters, that should be fun. Yes, now every one can be AC as soon as possible (basically as soon as a company hires that person on an AC position or they agree to change the title to AC).

So who is right, who is wrong, who to trust and who to bust? How to discern fake agilist from a true one?

Of course you can use question lists such as the one presented here: https://age-of-product.com/...
but anyone can do some info digging and do some background checks to prepare best for a conversation and basically answer what the interviewer wants to hear based on interviewer background, company values, trends, stock market value, ratio of project managers to agile practicioners (that is not contradictory of course) in any company on LinkedIn (come on, most people have their profiles there) and overall community of professionals (some people like to tell things during meetups or after them when it's time to drink some beer/wine and have some networking in an informal way. Valuable things. And the most valuable things come from people who are unhappy with their current employer). Deal with that.

It's easy to say things when you're finally at this splendid AC position. You can lock yourself in Ivory Tower and be an oracle of Agile. One eyed king in the land of the blind ("you" as in everyman, not Jim above in particular).

Or you can participate in a community, local meetups, write blog notes and basically help to grow the Agile community, be it Scrum, Kanban, Crystal (anyone?), DevOps, whatnot. Titles are just titles, so don't get crazy over them. SM is officialy defined, whereas AC still needs some formal definition just to end such pointless debates. Although SM definition is pretty open for interpretation.

Well, c'est la vie.

Hm, so how you can name yourself a Coach if you're not a certified coach as in ICF or a sports coach(pun intended)? You can actually hurt or damage something.

I've heard some pretty logical explanation that SM is an inside-out and AC is an outside-in approach. Maybe that's true, maybe that's only semantics.

An Agile Coach focus on the organization; the business, the users, all dev team members, infrastructure, operations, you get the idea. The AC needs to work with the Org to make all things work. It becomes obvious when you see dysfunction in a group(s). An SM might need to step outside the Product development team to help with blockers, which can lead to fixing other parts of the Org but most of their time will or should be on helping their team deliver their Sprint and looking out a sprint or 2. A coach will be involved with overall operations and harmony of the organization. The SM clears the teams path, the AC clears the Organizations path

How is an AC different? I don't lead planning for all my teams, I don't run down impediments, I don't scrub every backlog with every product owner. I just work with teams to ensure it's done. I actually don't hire SM's anymore, I prefer teams own their own SM skills, which I highly influence.

Will all due respect sir, but this sounds like an artificial division. Scrum Guide states that pretty clear that SM works on all levels of an org. Maybe people have problems with reading, I don't know. Without working through all levels you risk being disconnected from the whole picture - so what's the difference between some "experienced" project manager and AC then?

And here, in the Agility Guide to Evidence Based Change:
https://scrumorg-website-pr...
you have an Enterprise SM (check it out).

As of now I can understand that the problem is with semantics - SM is the master of Scrum and AC, as the name suggests, embraces all of Agile concepts, including Scrum but without being the master of Scrum (as the name suggests?). Oh sweet assumptions. Wow. Should we really measure our importance by some funny titles or maybe should we focus on doing our job right and not actually stepping on other people toes because they have a different title? It's not fence sitting. There is actually some tension between people who cannot tame their egos and pull the rank of AC imposing their position in the (company's more or less unique hierarchy model) as more important or wave a Scrum Guide in front of some AC and state that in Scrum there is no place for some funny Agile Coach and they should be fired, those impostors.

Those agile frameworks and methodologies are just that, tools. Agile on the other hand is a business now. People want to earn more cash and have titles that resonance with the market demand. If SM is no more a new black then go for AC. When AC would stop to be the new black go for... I don't really know, Enterprise Coach, Agile Project Manager? Also, people may feel endangered when their title loses it's shine. Also HIPPO. I think you can grasp some of that ideas.

So maybe the question is why go for the title of AC rather than SM?

Compare hourly rates of an SM and AC Joshua, that should shine some light on the issue;)

I don't understand the question, 'why go for'????
You mean why am I an AC not an SM anymore? Because I have shown proven success to help lead all product development and organizational transformational activities. Why does a PM become a Program Manager? he/she proved himself, there is a hierarchy, clearly. I don't subscribe to the Scrum Guide anymore, and honestly have read it in 5 years, if it changed it's just saving face by not clearly seeing the difference. Most SM's need to learn the skills at the executive level, as a developer turned SM there is no way your are ready to lead at that level.

because it comes from one of two areas, you were either a sr developer/tech lead or a PM. Neither one are skilled or qualified to the Organizations Coach. If you rest your intelligence on the Scrum Guide, you aren't really learning what agile means, you evolve it for your teams and org, you don't read a play book. You'll only be as mediocre as the guide.

Your bias is clear, you have too many negative pings about the AC, clearly you drank the Scrum.org Coolaide. I don't think I'll continue this conversation but I'll leave you with this. A good AC is a better leader than a process monkey who just executes scrum out of the box, by definition of Agile that approach is wrong. An Agilist knows by what he/she sees or hears how and what the org needs help with and begins to form a plan and execute on it. I'm not glorified but I am empowered by the executives. I am well compensated, doubling what most SM's make because I've successfully controlled up to a 50 million dollar budget, most SM teams never crack a million. I think Scrum and an SM are a good place to start, but the cream rises to the top when it comes to coaches.

Come on, who's making accusations here? Scrum is also Agile, and SM is also an Agilist.
About the bias, idk. Since when scrum.org started selling Scrum as out of the box instant resolution to all of your problems, including migraine? After reading like half of the blog notes here I can't really see that. To the contrary sir. Maybe you should try reading some of Ken's original notes on his own blog? I quite agree with his view on Scrum, just maybe not on the Scrumble part.
On the other note, in this whole AC community one does measure his own importance by the budget s/he is controlling? Wow.
I do have a gripe with people who title themselves "Agile Coaches" who do pull their rank and measure their agility by some parameters, more or less ephemeral and try to impose their importance over SMs on the basis of some "experience" and "coaching" when one is not even a certified coach. I think that can actually hurt someone or something.
Still, no point in quarreling here. We have our own views, I agree to disagree on some points and that's that. Scrum/Kanban/Crystal/whatever that works on.

Hierarchy. Proving oneself. Hard reality after all.
Everyone starts somewhere. In what point in time one decides that's the best day to start being an Agile Coach? When one get's bored with bad implementation of Scrum, lack of power as an SM in a company, company's misunderstanding of Scrum, willingness to stay in a comfort zone or just needing more cash? Come on, the Scrum understading is sometimes diluted. Recruiters may go for whoever have the smoothest talk, not for people with proven knowledge of Scrum, in forms of certifications by Scrum Org or Alliance? It's not a Koolaid, it's an antipattern. Yes, people are resistant. We strive to change that.
We clearly have different experiences. And I'm pretty ok with that.

Ha! Not a certified coach, did you get that Cert from a 2 or was it a 3 day seminar you attended to get your "guaranteed coaching degree" The whole certification process in Agile is a joke, between Scrum Alliance and PMI there are 39 guaranteed over priced certification you can get. This topic of certification is highly laughed at by people on Linked-in but apparently i hurt your feeling. So here is what I do...I tell people get education, not certifications because the Scrum.Org sold out to a cash cow of certifications, I do not recommend to ANYONE to take certifications, get education and experience. If you like I could sell you my class, maybe you can put some more numbers and letters behind your name. And if you knew anything about budget you would know that it highly correlates to complexity of scaling agile. Sen Sei (lol) dude please, I'm not impressed with you, your knowledge from a pla book that you follow changes yearly and your BS certifications.... but you have made me laugh a few times this week...sorry.....not sorry. I've had more people send me private messages who are dying laughing at this banter. Enjoy selling certs and over priced classes, I'll continue being one of the best coaches I can and my clients agree.

A typical Agile Coach. We should have a meme of that or even build a detector using arduino for those buzzwords - koolaid, cash cow, BS certifications.
If you feel better after having some social proof on your thesis, it if it makes you sleep safe and sound in your ivory tower then go for it.
I can only wish you a pleasant day and maybe a cool shower from time to time. Scrum on.

Let me teach you how to effectively rehab an org. Your book won’t hel but we can film it together

When you are successful with a team or 3 you can consider or be considered for a coach. Ive met few scrum masters who could lead an organization but i have met a few.

The rate difference is clear and should be. If i ran a software company ( oh i do) i would gladly pay 500k for a rockstar agile coach. If its my millions at stake, i would not turn it over to an SM who doesn’t exude executive thinking and grass roots skills, and scars from uears of battle...

I'm not buying into that mumbo-jumbo, but if you have a blog or some kind of podcast I would like to take a look at that. Maybe we could learn something new, who knows.

AC

This is very inspiring blog. Can I post it on our website of a scrum tool?

Is it an opensource tool? Looks interesting.

so let's say i'm scrum master and have interduce to group of people (e.g. over 30). and I'm planning to group them to multiple scrum teams. what is the best approach to do so? should we decide collaboratively, or we should study how to distribute seniors and juniors or we should choose the PO fist.. any advices?