About 5 years ago, Christiaan Verwijs and I wrote a series of Scrum Mythbusters articles. Most triggered interesting debates in the community, but if there's one article that caused a stir, it's this one.
It's also a case in the PSM advanced class. Introducing it to the Scrum.org trainer community (when we designed the class) resulted in many heated discussions. 🔥
Here's the short version.
The Scrum Master is primarily responsible for the Scrum framework and the empirical process underlying it. Sometimes, this may require that the Scrum Master remove people from the team. ⛔
Prolonged conflicts between individuals in teams can dissolve the trusting environment needed for the empirical process to work. Because the team is self-organizing, it should be supported in whatever way possible to resolve these conflicts independently.
However, what if the team cannot resolve the conflict after repeated attempts? In that case, the Scrum Master—a servant leader—has the responsibility and authority to act for the good of the team and the empirical process of Scrum. This is a last resort and something to avoid.
Suppose a prolonged unresolved conflict harms the team's functioning. As a result, you may start seeing people skipping Scrum events, helpful discussions may be avoided, and people will be less willing to be open and transparent about their work. The foundations of Scrum—transparency, inspection, and adaptation—are crumbling. 💥
Considering such a conflict, is it ethical for a Scrum Master to do nothing and wait for the team to decide themselves? 🤷♀️
What if everyone knew the team suffered, affecting its operation? In that case, the Scrum Master is the right person to step in and act as a servant leader—do what needs to be done—no matter how difficult.
A common objection is that removing people from the team can damage trust. How will people feel safe again knowing that a Scrum Master can act like this?
Isn’t the reverse more likely to be true? Rather than decreasing trust, taking action will help restore trust. Group dynamics create space for the team to find a more productive collaboration. The Scrum Master has also demonstrated that he or she is willing to make a difficult decision, such as removing someone for the good of the team. Rather than decreasing trust, removal can be a powerful signal to help restore trust.
PS: We're not talking about a person being fired from the company but removed from a team.
It's a sensitive topic that's highly contextual. Before you jump to conclusions, please read the in-depth post for more examples and details.
- What are your thoughts on and experiences with this topic?
- Have you ever been in a situation where Scrum Masters were allowed to make such decisions?
- What about Agile teams without a Scrum Master? How are these situations taken care of?