Scrum Master responsibilities: what to do when management imposes the duties of a PM on a SM

The Scrum framework defines certain accountabilities that a Scrum Master must have. A company may have a role within the organization that also has certain responsibilities and accountabilities. The same person may hold this organizational role and hold the Scrum Master accountabilities within the Scrum framework.

Depending on the exact implementation, many of the proposed responsibilities may not conflict with the accountabilities laid out in Scrum. Perhaps, based on your specific discussions with management, you do see these conflicts. Starting with the specific conflicts between the Scrum Master accountabilities and these organizational responsibilities and accountabilities may be a good first step.

At the same time, management is cunning, because they understand what self-governance is, but they simply replace concepts in order to achieve the goal.

How cunning are they? Have you asked management what outcomes they are looking for, and why they think replacing these concepts will achieve them?

A Scrum Master ought to be good at wondering about the strange things they see going on, and developing a train of thought.

The only outcomes I can see here are the same ones the company has always had, because nothing is fundamentally changing, along with a reduction in transparency over what Scrum means and a missed opportunity to improve.

Remember that the Scrum Guide describes a role and does not provide a job description or job title.  It is possible that someone will fulfill the role of Scrum Master but have other titles.  I have done so many times as an Engineering Manager.  I have had other responsibilities and duties in addition to the ones provided in the Scrum Guide.  Often one of them is being fiscal responsible to a budget.

 the task of the scrum master is to teach the team self-management, and being marginal is one of the signs of a high-quality self-managing team.

I'm not going to say that they are wrong.  As I said, I've had to do the exact thing that they say. The way I have always approached it is to coach the Scrum Team on being self-managing.  I explain that self-managing does not just mean they get to decide how to work.  It also means that they have to be fiscally responsible to the organization that is giving them a pay check.  They have to make decisions that benefit the organization and allows the organization to be capable of fulfilling their promises to the world.  And since most organizations are for profit, there is also the need for them to help the organization maintain profitability. If the teams truly want to be self-managing and self-organizing, they will have to do it in a way that allows the organization to thrive.  

Also remember that the individual fulfilling the role of Scrum Master is part of the team.  As such, they are able to participate in decisions or raise concerns about decisions/situations. This is a good way to help the others identify when they may not be making the correct decision.  However, never let them forget about empiricism either.  Decisions need to be made based upon the available information.  If your upper management wants the team to make fiscal decisions and be accountable for margins, then they have to provide the necessary information to the team.  That is something that upper management often forgets about when trying to implement these type of "rules".  Are they really ready to show every team the financials that they need?  Are they willing to share all of the strategic discussions that occur?  Would they be willing to let the team know that the organization needs to lay off some workers and let the team decide who gets laid off?  They may think they are being cunning but they may not have thought this through completely.

I would simply ask if they company wishes to do Scrum or not. If not, then accept it or move on. But if they say they do, then they must understand and respect the accountabilities, events and artifacts that make up Scrum.



Now I understand that sounds like I think it's easy but I have in fact been in similar situations and have simply grown frustrated over the amount of organisations claiming to "be agile" and "doing Scrum" who haven't even begun to comprehend the fundamental concepts of the things they claim to be masters at.

Organisations must make their mind up if they want to strive towards agility or not. Not do something half-baked where they often only change a few names of roles around or tell you to perform your role as a SM or PO while also keep doing all the stuff the organisation has always done even though it flies in the face of agility... and then blame "agile" or "Scrum" when it isn't working out and no magical benefits are reaped.

Ok, I felt a rant coming on here so I'll just stop now and get a glass of water :)

It's not unusual for companies to expect Scrum Masters to take on extra responsibilities, but it's important to check if they align with Agile and Scrum values. If you're in a similar situation, chat with your boss about their expectations and explain what Scrum Masters typically do. Think about whether the extra tasks will stop you from being a good Scrum Master and speak up if needed.

Yes. Management holds the too common idea that the Scrum Master is the Development  Manager / "Delivery Manager" / "Release Train Manager" / team lead and they'll say you are responsible for what the team produces, budget, milestones, deadlines and quality. They do not think you are taking up extra responsibilities, they think that is the Scrum Master. They just changed the name of the job.



You may only be able to get their idea changed if you have a real Product Owner, can explain what the role of the PO is, and how that is the role accountable for the Value created and that actually has the budget.

Colleagues, thank you very much for your comments and experience. You have given me a lot of food for thought.

That is something that upper management often forgets about when trying to implement these type of "rules".  Are they really ready to show every team the financials that they need?  Are they willing to share all of the strategic discussions that occur?  Would they be willing to let the team know that the organization needs to lay off some workers and let the team decide who gets laid off?

Thank you for sharing your experience and for pointing me in the right direction. This is exactly what I was missing 

I would simply ask if they company wishes to do Scrum or not. If not, then accept it or move on. But if they say they do, then they must understand and respect the accountabilities, events and artifacts that make up Scrum.

That's the best answer so far which I personally always do

 If someone pays me for being a Scrum master then the logic is to allow me being a Scrum master and to have the Scrum in the organization. Its my professional duty to explain, teach, coach and mentor Scrum within organization at the best of my ability.

If organization deviates, its either my failure to explain and promote Scrum, or organization is deliberately sabotaging it.

Then the question is why they are doing it, and are they aware that they are wasting a money by funding Scrum without actually implementing it? If they want it that way, after receiving all necessary and honest feedback from your kind, then fine, its their business, and their money