Coaching a Scrum Master who also manages the team
Priya is Scrum Master for a six-person platform team and also line manager for three of its members. She conducts their appraisals, approves leave, and handles performance concerns. The team is polite in retrospectives but rarely raises impediments; when someone does, Priya often solves it herself before the next meeting. Two engineers privately say they do not want to admit mistakes because it may affect their review. Priya is enthusiastic and asks you to help her “become a better Scrum Master.” Her manager wants the coaching to focus on facilitation techniques and has not acknowledged the dual role. You have six coaching sessions and no authority to change reporting lines.
1. What is the core issue, and how do you contract with Priya and her manager?
Read the worked answer
The core issue is a role conflict, not a facilitation-skill gap. A Scrum Master needs the team to surface impediments and challenge the process; a line manager controls appraisals, leave, and performance consequences. That power difference makes silence rational. If I only teach facilitation, I may improve the mechanics while the team still withholds risk. I would contract separately with Priya and her manager. With Priya, I would share the pattern I have heard, without attributing private comments, and ask whether the dual role feels workable. I would offer confidentiality and make clear that I will not become a performance channel. With the manager, I would explain the system risk and ask what flexibility exists: separating the roles, transferring appraisals, or clarifying decision rights. I would not promise a reporting-line change I cannot deliver, but I would not collude in ignoring the issue.
2. Design the coaching plan for Priya across six sessions. What would you explore and what experiments would you propose?
Read the worked answer
Session 1: build trust, agree goals, and raise the dual-role dilemma through observation and questions. Ask what Priya notices about which risks reach the retrospective and what she believes the team holds back. Session 2: explore her intentions and fears. When she solves impediments quickly, what is she protecting? What does she think the team learns? Session 3: distinguish coaching, mentoring, and managing. Use a real retrospective example to examine who owned the problem and what might shift. Session 4: design a small experiment, such as having a team member facilitate one retrospective while Priya participates as a peer, or using anonymous risk collection before the meeting. Session 5: review what happened and ask what the team did differently. Session 6: agree sustaining practices and escalation boundaries. Throughout, avoid teaching frameworks as a substitute for addressing power. My stance is to raise awareness and let Priya choose, while being honest about the systemic risk.
3. How would you measure progress, and what would you do if the organization refuses to separate the roles?
Read the worked answer
Measure conditions for safety rather than Priya’s compliance. Useful indicators include the number and type of impediments raised in retrospectives, whether actions are owned by team members rather than Priya, whether risks are raised before they become incidents, and a short anonymous pulse on whether people fear negative consequences for speaking up. Observe whether team members challenge Priya in meetings and whether she can stay quiet. Do not use these as individual performance scores. If the organization refuses to separate the roles, document the risk and recontract with Priya and her manager: coaching can improve facilitation, but it cannot remove the appraisal power difference. Offer mitigations such as a skip-level channel for impediments, an independent facilitator for sensitive retrospectives, or transferring performance conversations to another manager. If none are available, be explicit that the team may remain politely compliant and that this is a system choice, not a coaching failure.