Scrum Master should promote and support Scrum, not enforce and police it.
In "The Scrum Master" chapter it says:
"The Scrum Master is responsible for ensuring Scrum is understood and enacted".
Change to: "The Scrum Master is responsible for promoting and supporting the Scrum implementation"
Then it says "Scrum Masters do this by ensuring that the Scrum Team adheres to Scrum theory, practices, and rules."
Change to: "Scrum Masters do this by helping everyone understand Scrum theory, practices, and rules."
Rationale for change: this whole paragraph makes the SM a process enforcer rather than a servant leader. Suggesting a better way of phrasing it.
Filip Beslic commented
The role of the Scrum Master is there to promote and defend the concepts of agile inside the team, but also inside the organization. If the Scrum process is not respected, it is referred to as a scrum-but, eq: “yeah we are doing scrum, ‘but we don’t do the sprint-review”. That’s not scrum, period. Nor is it agile.
The purpose of Agile is to minimize the risk of developing the wrong product, and since Agile is a lightweight methodology, which based on the recommendation above (and others), can be considered as ‘interpretable’. Proving that it truly is essential to have a Scrum Master which makes sure the Agile process is respected, and teams don’t end-up using scrum-buts.
Additional side note, a servant leader creates an environment where a team can grow to their true potential by facilitating and promoting empowerment. That doesn’t take away that the team has responsibilities, a true empowered team takes those responsibilities. And a Scrum Master ensures that they do.
Jason Knight commented
I wrote a blog post as a response:
I'm not in favor of making the proposed changes as is. The language could probably be tweaked to be clearer in it’s intent, but I find the context of the Scrum guide is sufficient for accurate interpretation. Furthermore, the language has had a positive effect on me and my growth as a Scrum Master.
Filip Beslic commented
Wow, then why not go waterfall all the way but call it agile? I see this constantly in companies, people don't understand scrum so they try to squeze it into something which it isn't, which fit's their needs (so they think) but ends up not being agile at all.
You are scrum (agile) or you aren't. A scrum master's responsibility is to make sure you are.
Tom Polo commented
The phrases are ok as is and no need to be changed. SM should ensure Scrum is being practiced correctly.
Scrum and the scrum guide says nothing about "servant leader". I disagree that the wording would need to change here.
MIke Dwyer commented
I where do you see all this thuggery? Scrum Masters both promote scrum AND ensure the frame and process are followed.
Servant leadership is about leading when the team is in th mud or lost or off the reservation. It is also about coaching a team to do their 'thing' within the frame. Finally scrummasters. Mentor teams.
The scrum master's servant leadership to the team, the PO, and to the organizationis well described in the guide
Jamie Karim commented
I'm new to Scrum but my interpretation of this is that the scrum master ensures there is commitment to the values and theory of scrum throughout the process.
They are also responsible for the disciplined delivery of scrum to ensure the team don't fall back into faulty practices that do not support the successful delivery of the sprint.
Without someone who is responsible for the integrity of Scrum there is a major risk that when the going get tough people revert to default practices. How the Scrum master maintains discipline is up to the skills and experience of the person but it should be based on the values of Scrum.
Martien van Steenbergen commented
Reminds me of a conversation I had earlier: When can you say that you are doing proper Scrum? How important is it that you do a proper Scrum? Is there a clear border between doing and not doing proper Scrum or is it a blurry line? With either, how important is that. I know that not doing proper Scrum and still calling it Scrum gives Scrum and its players a bad name. So, how do we create (strong) guidance without turning into a police state? How do we balance spirit and letter?
Also, Scrum has self-modification built in through especially the Retrospective. This allows any proper Scrum implementation to self-modify or drift out of proper Scrum. Is it still Scrum then? If so, anything can be claimed to have evolved from proper Scrum.
Come to think of it, in the whole universe of frameworks to do complex adaptive work, Scrum is just a little speck you may hit accidentally. Scrum is an exception?
Jason Yip commented
Suggest "The Scrum Master is responsible for facilitating the Scrum implementation"