3 Distributed Teams, new Scrum Master
Hello everyone,
I'm a freshly minted Scrum Master (I was a teacher before) and I love this job.
I get along well with the people I work with, and I like offering people new ways of thinking and empowering them to make their own decisions.
The problem I have, though, is that I am in a very top-heavy organization, and my employer is asking me to not only lead three (distributed) scrum teams at once, but also be responsible for the implementation of the Scrum Process in IT.
Obviously, I am nowhere near qualified to do that. I thought my work would be with one team only, which taught me to ask more precise questions in my next job interview :D
Currently, I am trying to directly coach one team (which is hard over Skype) and work with the PO's in the other teams. As a result, I feel as though I am missing many valuable opportunities.
That being said, I like this job, and I like the company for giving me a chance even though I don't come from a tech background. I don't want to throw the towel.
How can I convince my CTO that every team needs their own Scrum Master? I have already tried once, but he rejected the idea as a waste of resources. I quote: "With a PO and a SM on every team, only 3/5 people do any actual work."
Are there any good resources, links, talks, stuff like that? How can I present my argument despite my lack of authority?
Thank you very much!
Why do you need to convince the CTO that each team needs its own Scrum Master? Shouldn’t they self-organize their own SM with an appropriate time commitment, perhaps from among their own number? If the CTO objects to this, why?
Hello Ian, and thank you for your reply.
Our CTO (perhaps I am using the phrase wrong, which is likely) Is the Head of IT, responsible for steering our part of the company, including hiring, assignments and project priority.
I will briefly add why he objected to adding another Scrum Master; He suggested that "in a team of five, with a PO and SM, only 3 people are doing any real development!"
In short, he thinks more than 1 Scrum Master is too much overhead.
I'm sorry to push, but this question has been bothering me, adding t the insecurity I feel because I can't be with each team member physically.
Max, is there any empirical evidence available that supports his position that a SM can be effective serving three teams?
With a PO and a SM on every team, only 3/5 people do any actual work.
It sounds like the CTO only values the development work as "real work". Perhaps he doesn't see the work the SM does as valuable?
As a new Scrum Master, I feel you should be focusing on one team only. This will allow you to improve your skills and promote/advocate for Agile across the organisation. Especially for distributed teams as from what I hear it's harder to work with.
I would ask the CTO why he feels that a new SM can support three teams. Also as Timothy said, what evidence does he have that a SM can effectively serve three teams.
Max, is there any empirical evidence available that supports his position that a SM can be effective serving three teams?
I doubt it, but my issue is that as a very new Scrum Master (this is my first SM job and I have a background in Education,) he does not put much faith in me, and by extension the Scrum Guide.
I have been trying to show him that trust is one of the most imprtant Scrum principles, but he insists that we "Start changing Scrum to fit our needs." That is ironic, since we never did scrum in the first place. We went through the motions, yes, but we never made sure stuff was transparent and that we could inspect and adapt.
As a new Scrum Master, I feel you should be focusing on one team only. This will allow you to improve your skills and promote/advocate for Agile across the organisation. Especially for distributed teams as from what I hear it's harder to work with.
That is what I will do. "Luckily" one of the other teams just imploded (the PO quit and took the senior dev with him,) and the other team said it's perfectly fine how it is and doesn't need me for the time being. (I chose to accept that at face value and be thankful for it.)
I also got a green light from my Boss, which is nice. I had to burn some credibility, ("I'm not good enough for that yet") and had to do some overtime, then point to my workload (We value work/life balance,) so in the end it worked out...for now.
I'm just ashamed and sad that I had to result to such trickery because my boss doesn't seem to understand what he even hired me for. I'm going to ask him what he thinks agile/scrum does, and how it does it in our next meeting.
@Max
From the Scrum Guide:
"Scrum’s roles, events, artifacts, and rules are immutable and although implementing only parts of Scrum is possible, the result is not Scrum."
If your CTO insists on conforming Scrum to fit "needs", then he is guaranteeing that the benefits of Scrum will not be realized. In addition, Agile is about change, both individually and organizationally. I always refer to Larman's 4 Laws of Organizational Behavior to provide me with great insights when faced with such situations:
https://www.craiglarman.com/wiki/index.php?title=Larman%27s_Laws_of_Org…
@Timothy
Thank you! Those are wonderful resources, and just on time for my "What the Hell is scrum about anyway" Presentation.