Change Scrum Master to Scrum Leader#12

The word Master is wrong for many reasons. A two day course doesnt make you a master of Scrum. Master is a racist term as in Slave Master. Master is an authoriarian term such as School Master. Master is a sexist term as in Chairman. All of these meanings of the word Master are incompatible with Scrum. Scrum should change the term to Scrum Leader to remove these negative meanings from the word.

I don’t like the label either. It’s also something that is not taken seriously, it sounds too much like Jedi Master and does not carry weight. I do not consider it likely to be changed.

I think changing the name harms transparency.

Although ‘Master’ has a negative connonciation when used in context of sex or slavery, that is not how the term is used here. It is used in context of mastering skill and knowledge, not dominating people. One may master an art, a programming language or sport. In education one may attain a masters degree. It is a term used to acknowledge proficiency and the overcoming of challenges.

Authority is not a bad word in and of itself either. When one is proficient in a technique or skill one can be authorative in a domain of skill or knowledge and there is nothing wrong with that kind of authority. It simply means you are capable, acknowledged and respected.

The term is only wrong when applied in a wholly incorrect context.

When we look at practice of the Scrum Master accountabilities, this does not lead to people being dominated sexually or enslaved.

But a Scrum Master is not a master of Scrum in the same way that someone has a Masters of Public Health. You cant compare a 2 day certification with a 2 year advanced degree. So that part of it is also completely misleading and wrong.

This discussion happened in many places already. Leader is often seen as the person telling people what to do, set goals and directions, which isn’t what a scrum master does.

Other suggestions I’ve seen include: Scrum Coach, but a scrum master doesn’t just coach, they teach, mentor, sometimes lead too. And the in many places the role “Agile coach” already exists where it tends to mean a coach without any accountability towards delivery of the product. Coach is also a protected title in some countries (like engineer is)

By the same account, this rules out Scrum Mentor, Scrum Teacher, Scrum Trainer (already used in different context).

I’ve seen Scrum manager (too command and controlly) scrum sensei (possible cultural appropriation) and a few others come by as well.

I personally like Scrum Shepherd, but others commented that it would make everyone else ‘sheep’.

Naming is hard

Unless we find a term that is both acceptible, describes the role well and doesn’t have any cultural negative connotations associated to it, it may be better to keep the current name. Bad as it is.

And while I agree that a Mastery in Scrum can’t be achieved in a 2 day class, the original Scrum Masters for whom the term was coined, were truly masters in Scrum, using the framework to truly help their test innovate and evolve. But then again, nobody will pay for a Scrum Apprentice certification ;).

The simplest change we could possibly make is “Master in Scrum”, which would rule out the master/slave connotation.

@Murray Robinson again, mastering something is to demonstrate proficiency. To be a master in something defines you as proficient in that. You are taking it out of context and then calling it misleading, but it is not misleading in the context where it is applied.

Scrum Master is not used in practice to dominate or enslave, neither does it create confusion to such a degree that it is harmful. Even if there would be confusion it is easilly cleared.

Whether someone should call themselves a Scrum Master after a two day course is a different argument then the one raised. Just because people are quick to call themselves a Scrum Master should not warrant a name change. We should focus on change of behavior and transparency on what the accountabilities actually are, rather then playing name games. Relabeling something does not fix the issues addressed.

If Scrum “Master” is about proficiency, then how come we don’t call Scrum Product “Owner” Scrum Product “Master”? After all, the person who manages a product backlog needs product proficiency, don’t they? When “master” is used as a verb, people think of proficiency. But when it’s used as a noun, it’s often connected with “sexism” or “racism.” Scrum is about adaptability, making adjustments based on new information. I think the principle should apply to every aspect of Scrum, including names of a team’s roles.

One does not become proficient at ‘Product’, but at the skills/competencies required to envision, develop, manage and maintain one (it requires various competencies to create adaptive solutions for complex problems, one person is not likely to master all of them, that’s why Scrum requires cross-functional teamwork). The accountabilities are more than managing a Product Backlog. So Product Backlog Management Master sounds silly and would not encompass the accountabilities.

One bears ultimate accountability and that can qualify as ‘ownership’: the accountability over something belongs to someone; ergo they can claim ownership of it. It unfortunatly goes with saying here this is not the same as people ownership as in slavery and neither do people make that association.

I personally do not know anyone who thinks the Scrum Master is defined as someone who is racist or sexist. I think this is making up a problem that does not exist, taking something completly out of context (strawmanning) just to make a misdirecred ideological claim. Changing the name does not add a whit of value.

Coaching and facilitation is just some of the activities the Scrum Master does. Changing it to Scrum Coach or Scrum Facilitator could be limiting.

What will the best name in order to share the value of an scrum master? Today in the field we see a lot of scrum master doing roles of project management or coordination. If I recall the 8 stances of an scrum master and also knowing that the scrum is based on empiricisme why not something like agile entrepreneur or agile leader?

Scrum Master is not a leader. They are on the same level as the rest of the team. I think the word leader suggest that they is higher in the company structure.
Regarding that you say the word ‘master’ is considered rasist. Seriously? So as a master of mathematics, polynomials, integrals and derivatives must be my slaves. I can live with that. :)

@Michał Lipek : SMs are leaders. Does not mean they are higher in company structure.

@Michał Lipek The English language covers both meanings with one word - leader and leadership. In one way it refers to formal leaders and on the other hand side, it means leader / leadership in terms of a social system.

The latter is the more relevant one, when we talk about modern organizations in a complex environment. And in the end formal leaders should also be real leaders and demonstrate real leadership. Otherwise they might be referred to just being managers or administrators (note the reference to the famous term MBA … Master of Business Administration).

That said, a Scrum Master as a leader has nothing to do with formal hierarchy, but with informal authority. You are granted authority because of the way you show up. Therefore a social system grants you being a leader.

I think it is absolutely irrelevant how the responsibility / accountability is called. actually we could call it “manager”, because the role is essentially describing what a manager in a reasonable organization should be doing.

Scrum “leader” creates a hierarchy forbidden by the guide. As for the complaint about “master” in scrum master, the term is in the context of mastery. Same reason we don’t have leader degrees, but master’s degrees.

Scrum Coach is better because Scrum Leader will undoubtedly lead to association to Team Leader, which is not what a Scrum Master is.