I enjoyed reading the article and the ultimate frisbee analogy fits well.
As a founder, I would consider hiring a Scrum Master at the point that:
> we've reached the size that someone needs to facilitate events - both for the team and the rest of the company. Groups don't naturally do a great job in meetings without someone neutral facilitating.
> we need someone to help find alternative practices, techniques and frameworks. Yes, "find what fits your team" is good guidance, however the team may have no idea about what to try.
> we need someone to look across the company to spot inefficiencies. 20 years ago our startup had many dysfunctional processes beyond the team. Our Scrum Master did a great job cleaning them up one by one.
I could go on. Net - the "overhead" can be valuably leveraged for organizational success.
The idea that everyone knows Scrum’s rules is often wrong. Many stakeholders and leaders only understand the basics. But professional Scrum is hard and disruptive because it forces organizations to face uncomfortable truths. That’s where the Scrum Master steps in—as an agent of change, guiding teams to self management.
Scrum’s iterative process is much harder than waterfall. Every iteration requires addressing complex tasks, demanding stronger discipline. Without the Scrum Master driving real change, Scrum becomes mechanical, just checking boxes. Their real value isn’t in running events but in helping teams evolve and adapt.
I follow your line of reasoning up to a certain point. Yes, a scrum master isn’t a prerequisite for a team in a small organization where everyone is sharing a similar vision on how to move forward. I guess that specific environment matches your sports analogy. However, in large organizations with multiple teams a different dynamic is prevalent. It is not so much the teams themselves being the ‘problem’, it’s the larger organization that is hardly - if at all - interested in the specific issues their (development) teams face. To them scrum/agile ‘or what ever this thing is called’ mostly is a none issue.
In my experience the most important task of a scrum master in a larger organization is educating and motivating everyone outside the teams in order to align the organization in working in a agile fashion. Even for an experienced and effective scrum master this proves to be a challenge that is extremely difficult to surpass.
So yes, I agree with you. Under very specific conditions a scrum master isn’t strictly necessary a d a good team should be able to figure things out amongst them selves. In most circumstances however, a ‘political savvy’ scrum master can make the difference between success or failure.
That's so true. I would rather invest in educating my team to learn this skill because it is a strategic competence that I definitely want to internalize. It's cool to do it in the short term, but in the long run, I want to invest in educating my team.
I enjoyed reading the article and the ultimate frisbee analogy fits well.
As a founder, I would consider hiring a Scrum Master at the point that:
> we've reached the size that someone needs to facilitate events - both for the team and the rest of the company. Groups don't naturally do a great job in meetings without someone neutral facilitating.
> we need someone to help find alternative practices, techniques and frameworks. Yes, "find what fits your team" is good guidance, however the team may have no idea about what to try.
> we need someone to look across the company to spot inefficiencies. 20 years ago our startup had many dysfunctional processes beyond the team. Our Scrum Master did a great job cleaning them up one by one.
I could go on. Net - the "overhead" can be valuably leveraged for organizational success.
The idea that everyone knows Scrum’s rules is often wrong. Many stakeholders and leaders only understand the basics. But professional Scrum is hard and disruptive because it forces organizations to face uncomfortable truths. That’s where the Scrum Master steps in—as an agent of change, guiding teams to self management.
Scrum’s iterative process is much harder than waterfall. Every iteration requires addressing complex tasks, demanding stronger discipline. Without the Scrum Master driving real change, Scrum becomes mechanical, just checking boxes. Their real value isn’t in running events but in helping teams evolve and adapt.
Yes, the idea that they know it is wrong, even WITH Scrum Masters.
Thanks for the professional Scrum marketing speak! ;)
The marketing speak is an effective way of differentiating between the environments two types of scrum masters might foster.
1) A scrum master who can call upon 20 years of industry experience in various software development life-cycles and environments.
2) A new grad who is a scrum master in title only, but effectively an engineering secretary.
I follow your line of reasoning up to a certain point. Yes, a scrum master isn’t a prerequisite for a team in a small organization where everyone is sharing a similar vision on how to move forward. I guess that specific environment matches your sports analogy. However, in large organizations with multiple teams a different dynamic is prevalent. It is not so much the teams themselves being the ‘problem’, it’s the larger organization that is hardly - if at all - interested in the specific issues their (development) teams face. To them scrum/agile ‘or what ever this thing is called’ mostly is a none issue.
In my experience the most important task of a scrum master in a larger organization is educating and motivating everyone outside the teams in order to align the organization in working in a agile fashion. Even for an experienced and effective scrum master this proves to be a challenge that is extremely difficult to surpass.
So yes, I agree with you. Under very specific conditions a scrum master isn’t strictly necessary a d a good team should be able to figure things out amongst them selves. In most circumstances however, a ‘political savvy’ scrum master can make the difference between success or failure.
Interesting discussion though!
That's so true. I would rather invest in educating my team to learn this skill because it is a strategic competence that I definitely want to internalize. It's cool to do it in the short term, but in the long run, I want to invest in educating my team.