I believe I understand your reasoning behind the one developer taking SM accountability, but it doesn't seem correct. Have you seen that work? I've been there juggling accountabilities between Dev vs SM, it's a path to misery.
Yes—I’ve absolutely seen it work in many companies. The key is realising that the Scrum Master accountability is often bloated far beyond what it actually requires. A lot of people fill the “SM job” with fluff and tasks just to justify a full-time role, but at its core, the accountability is about keeping the team focused on empiricism, flow, and continuous improvement. That doesn’t need to be a full-time job when a team takes ownership of what they do.
Jeff Sutherland actually made a LinkedIn post a while back highlighting that in the original design he and Ken created, the Scrum Master was not a separate, full-time role. He advocated a developer take on that accountability. When I was training PSM courses as a Professional Scrum Trainer (no longer one), I made it very clear that Scrum Master is an accountability, not necessarily a full-time position.
On the line manager point—I’m not suggesting they become the Scrum Master. The team still needs to be self-managing, with someone on the team ensuring Scrum is being followed and impediments are being addressed. But the line manager can play a vital support role from outside the team: handling organisational blockers, budgeting, logistics, recruiting, and using their position to influence change. In that sense, I completely agree with what Ryan Ripley is saying too, and I’ve often said the same—line managers are well-placed to support self-managing teams without disempowering them.
Appreciate the exchange—it’s good to challenge each other on these things.
I believe I understand your reasoning behind the one developer taking SM accountability, but it doesn't seem correct. Have you seen that work? I've been there juggling accountabilities between Dev vs SM, it's a path to misery.
As suggested by your LM definition, SM accountability should go to LM, who is actually empowered to pave the Team's road. Ryan Ripley would also agree with LM taking SM accontability: https://www.scrum.org/resources/blog/your-next-scrum-master-should-be-your-manager
Hey Cleon, thanks for the thoughtful reply!
Yes—I’ve absolutely seen it work in many companies. The key is realising that the Scrum Master accountability is often bloated far beyond what it actually requires. A lot of people fill the “SM job” with fluff and tasks just to justify a full-time role, but at its core, the accountability is about keeping the team focused on empiricism, flow, and continuous improvement. That doesn’t need to be a full-time job when a team takes ownership of what they do.
Jeff Sutherland actually made a LinkedIn post a while back highlighting that in the original design he and Ken created, the Scrum Master was not a separate, full-time role. He advocated a developer take on that accountability. When I was training PSM courses as a Professional Scrum Trainer (no longer one), I made it very clear that Scrum Master is an accountability, not necessarily a full-time position.
On the line manager point—I’m not suggesting they become the Scrum Master. The team still needs to be self-managing, with someone on the team ensuring Scrum is being followed and impediments are being addressed. But the line manager can play a vital support role from outside the team: handling organisational blockers, budgeting, logistics, recruiting, and using their position to influence change. In that sense, I completely agree with what Ryan Ripley is saying too, and I’ve often said the same—line managers are well-placed to support self-managing teams without disempowering them.
Appreciate the exchange—it’s good to challenge each other on these things.