When Scrum Masters are not seen as change agents but rather as team leads or delivery managers, they may feel disempowered to do their job effectively. There are two options for addressing this issue:
Option One involves being pig-headed and insisting on not being called a "manager," which can create tension and fail to connect with the management of the business. This approach is more focused on terminology and purist thinking than on driving meaningful change. Ultimately, it may not empower Scrum Masters to be effective leaders and may miss the opportunity to connect with management to bring about real change.
Option Two is about promoting the role of Scrum Masters as managers, getting the backing and support to make changes, and not getting hung up on the title. By embracing the leadership aspect of their role and addressing real issues that impede team progress, Scrum Masters can become true change agents. This approach involves gradually changing the culture of the organization to align with the concept of leadership, without relying on authority or a command-and-control approach.
The focus should be on empowering Scrum Masters to be effective leaders and to make change happen. Option Two may be a more practical and effective approach in the long run, as it prioritizes results over semantics. By promoting Scrum Masters as managers and embracing their leadership role, they can gain the support and backing needed to drive meaningful change and help the organization succeed. Over time, one can work on terminology changes as a different impediment. But at least with option two, one can start real change.
It happens when team organization plan and execution plan is made thinking of a traditional waterfall approach whereby Program Managers / Project Managers would be leading delivery and setting tasks for team . Later they treat Scrum Masters as a bearer of their responsibilities. A Scrum Master is often doing things not supposed to be done by them, eventually limiting the role and impact they would have created for achieving a successful outcome. Thanks.
The simple fact that you need to define someone in the scrum framework as a “manager”, to my ears only translates as missing the bigger picture -the end goals- of scrum as a framework. Sorry.
I see the big picture clearly and fully understand agile. Most people don't understand leadership, servant leadership and how that translates to management. I think the agile community as a whole needs to lighten up a little and not get so worked up about thing like a word "manager". For a community that stands for individuals and interactions, psychological safety - most are critical and condescending. Most are unwilling to have a conversation. Sorry.
How about having a conversation about the topic and not make personal attacks?
I guess the community does not want to have that conversation because it understands that the responsibilities and accountabilities of a scrum master are very clear, and very powerful by default.
A scrum master that feels unsafe unless he/she has the authoritarian label and blessing of “management” is clearly not a good fit for the role. In a healthy team the “manager” is the goal and the vision.
At the organization level, a scrum master i want to believe has the managerial power you are suggesting since the SM has the power to “remove impediments” (as an example).
A good SM (as every other part of a scrum team) has to gain and build that trust that will lead to respect. I am generalizing and summarizing a bit more than i am comfortable here but i hope my point is clear since we all know what we are talking about.
I support all the things you say. I truly wish it were the case; however, the world does not see it that way you and I do. The reality is most scrum masters are disempowered.
I offer mentoring services to Scrum Masters. The most common issue raised when we start is "I am not supported by my management" or "I am limited to team only and cannot influence outside of the team, I get shot down".
Sometimes we just need to use language that makes sense to those that don't get it. In my consulting, most don't get the scrum master position. When explained using "management" terminology, suddenly they say "aah, get it" and then put Scrum Masters in positions where they can be effective. The SM then overtime helps the culture change, breaking down "manager" thinking to "leader" thinking. It does not just happen.
I understand. I have been in similar situations, not only with SMs but also devs and pos with similar issues.
The best advise I have for them is the following. Reword and repeat yourself everyday. Find a good reason and a creative way to point out every day what is the goal, and clear steps towards it. Especially towards higher management. Choose your battles but stick to your ground when its needed.
Scrum Masters are not managers of teams. They are managers of Scrum and manage helping the organisation adopt and apply Scrum. Note that "manage" by dictionary definition is not limited to people. e.g. I manage my finances.
Ken Schwaber runs scrum.org and I am a independent Professional Scrum Trainer. I have been in Face-to-face conversations where Ken has been present.
Years ago Ken was concerned that Scrum Masters are disempowered and became team workers; effectively not being able to help organisations use Scrum correctly. The term became "True Leader" without using the word manager. However to get the point across, the PSM I assessment has the question
Is a Scrum Master a manager (True / False). The correct answer is True.
Ken has been very explicit about this question to the Trainer Community and it has been debated in depth. As trainers we help people understandand the distinction between a management position versus a manager of people and leadership style.
When Scrum Masters are not seen as change agents but rather as team leads or delivery managers, they may feel disempowered to do their job effectively. There are two options for addressing this issue:
Option One involves being pig-headed and insisting on not being called a "manager," which can create tension and fail to connect with the management of the business. This approach is more focused on terminology and purist thinking than on driving meaningful change. Ultimately, it may not empower Scrum Masters to be effective leaders and may miss the opportunity to connect with management to bring about real change.
Option Two is about promoting the role of Scrum Masters as managers, getting the backing and support to make changes, and not getting hung up on the title. By embracing the leadership aspect of their role and addressing real issues that impede team progress, Scrum Masters can become true change agents. This approach involves gradually changing the culture of the organization to align with the concept of leadership, without relying on authority or a command-and-control approach.
The focus should be on empowering Scrum Masters to be effective leaders and to make change happen. Option Two may be a more practical and effective approach in the long run, as it prioritizes results over semantics. By promoting Scrum Masters as managers and embracing their leadership role, they can gain the support and backing needed to drive meaningful change and help the organization succeed. Over time, one can work on terminology changes as a different impediment. But at least with option two, one can start real change.
It happens when team organization plan and execution plan is made thinking of a traditional waterfall approach whereby Program Managers / Project Managers would be leading delivery and setting tasks for team . Later they treat Scrum Masters as a bearer of their responsibilities. A Scrum Master is often doing things not supposed to be done by them, eventually limiting the role and impact they would have created for achieving a successful outcome. Thanks.
The simple fact that you need to define someone in the scrum framework as a “manager”, to my ears only translates as missing the bigger picture -the end goals- of scrum as a framework. Sorry.
I see the big picture clearly and fully understand agile. Most people don't understand leadership, servant leadership and how that translates to management. I think the agile community as a whole needs to lighten up a little and not get so worked up about thing like a word "manager". For a community that stands for individuals and interactions, psychological safety - most are critical and condescending. Most are unwilling to have a conversation. Sorry.
How about having a conversation about the topic and not make personal attacks?
I guess the community does not want to have that conversation because it understands that the responsibilities and accountabilities of a scrum master are very clear, and very powerful by default.
A scrum master that feels unsafe unless he/she has the authoritarian label and blessing of “management” is clearly not a good fit for the role. In a healthy team the “manager” is the goal and the vision.
At the organization level, a scrum master i want to believe has the managerial power you are suggesting since the SM has the power to “remove impediments” (as an example).
A good SM (as every other part of a scrum team) has to gain and build that trust that will lead to respect. I am generalizing and summarizing a bit more than i am comfortable here but i hope my point is clear since we all know what we are talking about.
I support all the things you say. I truly wish it were the case; however, the world does not see it that way you and I do. The reality is most scrum masters are disempowered.
I offer mentoring services to Scrum Masters. The most common issue raised when we start is "I am not supported by my management" or "I am limited to team only and cannot influence outside of the team, I get shot down".
Sometimes we just need to use language that makes sense to those that don't get it. In my consulting, most don't get the scrum master position. When explained using "management" terminology, suddenly they say "aah, get it" and then put Scrum Masters in positions where they can be effective. The SM then overtime helps the culture change, breaking down "manager" thinking to "leader" thinking. It does not just happen.
I understand. I have been in similar situations, not only with SMs but also devs and pos with similar issues.
The best advise I have for them is the following. Reword and repeat yourself everyday. Find a good reason and a creative way to point out every day what is the goal, and clear steps towards it. Especially towards higher management. Choose your battles but stick to your ground when its needed.
Scrum creators did not make Scrum Masters as managers for a reason. If you want to be a manager please apply for the position of a project manager.
Scrum Masters are not managers of teams. They are managers of Scrum and manage helping the organisation adopt and apply Scrum. Note that "manage" by dictionary definition is not limited to people. e.g. I manage my finances.
Ken Schwaber runs scrum.org and I am a independent Professional Scrum Trainer. I have been in Face-to-face conversations where Ken has been present.
Years ago Ken was concerned that Scrum Masters are disempowered and became team workers; effectively not being able to help organisations use Scrum correctly. The term became "True Leader" without using the word manager. However to get the point across, the PSM I assessment has the question
Is a Scrum Master a manager (True / False). The correct answer is True.
Ken has been very explicit about this question to the Trainer Community and it has been debated in depth. As trainers we help people understandand the distinction between a management position versus a manager of people and leadership style.
I chose my wordings in my post very carefully