“If you’ve never been fired as a Scrum Master, then you’re no good.”
The sentiment of this statement is something that I have come across within the Scrum community over the years. I understand where it’s coming from especially when it comes to implementing Scrum in toxic environments. Some environments are so resistant to change that championing agility can feel like an act of rebellion, and this resistance is seen as something to be broken. Scrum Masters and Agile Coaches see it as their duty to keep fighting until people “see the light”, even if it means that the discomfort that is created might cost them their job.
This is not something that I subscribe to.
To quote Ken Schwaber, “A dead sheepdog is a useless sheepdog.”*
For me, getting fired isn’t a badge of honor. It’s not a sign you’re doing the right thing and the organisation “just doesn’t get it”. It might just mean that you pushed too hard and too fast in an organisation that wasn’t ready, and you didn’t pick your battles wisely.
Scrum, at its heart, is built on the values of commitment, courage, focus, openness, and respect. These values are enablers for transparency where people are willing to share information, to face reality and to learn from what they find. In toxic environments however, those values are often absent or worse, actively undermined. I've worked in places where:
- Change was a rhetorical slogan put on posters on the wall, but not a reality on the floor
- “Agile” was a rebrand of traditional command-and-control
- Teams were constantly pressured to deliver faster, with little regard for quality, value, outcomes or improvement
- Teams were told they were empowered but were then overruled and had their decisions second-guessed
- Heroic individualism was celebrated, even when it burned people out
- Transparency became a tool for blame, not learning
When helping teams implement Scrum in toxic environments such as these, even the most well-intentioned Scrum Master can do more harm than good.
When Transparency Becomes a Weapon
Transparency is part of the empirical process that is core to Scrum theory. But what happens when you expose risks or issues in a culture that punishes bad news? What happens when honest conversations lead to spin, scapegoating, or silence?
When using Scrum in toxic environments and cultures, teams learn to hide problems in order to stay safe. Progress is exaggerated. Metrics are gamed. And if a Scrum Master insists on transparency without understanding the human system they’re in, they risk becoming part of the problem and reinforcing the very dysfunctions they hope to change. Effective change isn’t just about implementing Scrum or some other approach, it also requires awareness of human aspects such as resistance to change, individual psychology, group dynamics, sociology and culture (incidentally, these are aspects that are part of the Kanban Method).
If there is a lack of safety, full transparency can be dangerous, not just to the Scrum Master but to the teams and the wider organisation that the Scrum Master is there to support. If full transparency back-fires, trust in the Scrum Master, Scrum itself and agile in general can be broken as well as any confidence to experiment further. That is a hard place to come back from.
I like to think of it as the organisation needing to earn the right for transparency, first by creating an environment where the truth can be seen and heard, and there is true leadership to act upon new information.
The Danger of the Hero Narrative
There's a certain perception that I believe needs to be challenged, that of the heroic Scrum Master who charges in, challenges the status quo, and shakes the system to its core. It’s a compelling story, but it rarely ends well. Real change does not come from confrontation and coercion.
Being effective in a complex, political, or even toxic environment means understanding the system. Building trust. Finding allies and working with them. Creating safety. Choosing your battles and choosing your moments. Sometimes, it means knowing when not to speak. Sometimes it might mean knowing when not to champion transparency.
Are You Doing More Harm Than Good?
As a Scrum Master, I believe that it is important to reflect on your approach and your impact.
Are you helping people see possibilities and make informed choices? Or are you pushing your worldview onto a system that isn’t ready to hear it?
A change agent’s role is not to disrupt for disruption’s sake. A Scrum Master’s job should not be to enforce a dogmatic view of Scrum. It’s to hold up a mirror to the system, show consequences, and help people reflect. It’s about creating the conditions where change feels both safe and worthwhile.
Sometimes, that means moving slowly. Sometimes, it means choosing silence. And sometimes, it means recognizing that surviving to fight another day is more valuable than starting a fight that you can’t win. Being a change agent implementing Scrum in toxic environments means being discerning. It means coaching with empathy, navigating politics with care, and celebrating every small shift.
Sometimes the most powerful work we do is invisible. We plant seeds. We create the conditions for learning. We model curiosity, courage, and calm. We show people the consequences of their decisions, and then we let them choose.
Transparency, in this sense, is not about shouting the truth. It’s about illuminating a path forward.
Read The Room, Not Just The Guide
Adopting Scrum won’t automatically lead to agility. It won’t fix a toxic culture overnight. It takes humility, humanity and helping people to see the problems they face and that better ways are possible.
Here’s what I’ve found helpful when working in difficult environments to guide the organisation towards greater transparency:
- Understand the context
- Balance transparency with safety
- Find supporters and build alliances
- Guide people to find their own way
- Celebrate progress, however small
I also believe that it is important to recognize your personal values and where your red lines are. While the level of transparency may sometimes have to be a compromise, there may be compromises that you will not make. Your personal values are your internal moral compass. In complex systems, you can’t control the outcomes, but you can choose how you show up, what you stand for, and when to walk away.
So no, I don’t believe you have to have been fired to prove yourself to be a good Scrum Master.
I do believe you have to have courage, commitment, focus, openness, and respect, as well as your own values, patience, perseverance and wisdom.
*Ken Schwaber. (2004). Agile Project Management with Scrum. ISBN-10:073561993X Microsoft Press ©. In this book. Ken compares Scrum Masters to sheepdogs as they are “responsible for keeping the flock together and the wolves away”
Feature Image by Josh Hild on Pexels