Balance of Leadership and Control in Scrum

Scrum is built on self-management, yet accountability cannot exist without authority. If Scrum Masters and Product Owners are held responsible for outcomes, how much control should they have? Too much, and teams lose autonomy. Too little, and they become ineffective. This article explores the nuanced balance of leadership, authority, and control in Scrum—how influence must be complemented by decisive action to enable true agility.

Can One Be Held Accountable for What One Has No Control Over?

TL;DR; - Accountability without authority is a contradiction. If Scrum Masters and Product Owners are expected to deliver results, they must have the authority to remove impediments, challenge dysfunction, and enforce alignment where necessary. Influence is critical, but influence alone is often not enough. True leadership means balancing empowerment with decisive action, ensuring teams are both autonomous and accountable. Without the authority to act when needed, accountability becomes an empty expectation.

Leadership, Authority, and Accountability

Product Owners and Scrum Masters balance leadership, authority, and control by providing clear intent, fostering initiative, and reinforcing accountability. They guide rather than micromanage, ensuring the team understands the vision and goals, has the autonomy to execute, and remains accountable for outcomes. When intervention is needed, they step in decisively while preserving the team’s ownership of their responsibilities.

Product Owners and Scrum Masters lead through influence but must assert authority when needed—Product Owners to maximise product value, and Scrum Masters to enable the effectiveness of the Scrum Team. Effective leadership balances autonomy and alignment, ensuring teams self-manage while staying accountable to commitments and organisational goals.

Context Dictates Authority

The authority wielded by the Product Owner is more widely recognised and acknowledged, so why not the Scrum Master?

The Scrum Master is accountable for the Scrum Team’s effectiveness. This accountability demands both leadership and, within the right context, a degree of authority. While some argue that a Scrum Master should have no direct authority, this ignores the reality that influence alone is often insufficient to drive change in certain organisational contexts.

The argument against Scrum Masters having authority is often based on a misunderstanding of self-management. According to the Scrum Guide, self-managing teams decide who does what, when, and how. However, this autonomy is bounded by Scrum events, commitments, and organisational needs. The key is the freedom to decide how to deliver value—without ignoring accountability, strategy, or constraints.

In practice, the level of authority a Scrum Master should exercise depends on the organisational landscape. In a command-heavy environment, excessive control leads to blind obedience, stifling self-management. Conversely, a leadership-heavy approach without structure creates chaos. The Scrum Master must navigate this balance, adapting to the constraints of the organisation while continuously working to remove impediments to the team’s effectiveness. The organisational constraints being the very things that may be  reducing the effectiveness of the Scrum Team.

The Duality of Leadership and Control

Leadership in a Scrum environment is about guiding the team toward continuous improvement. However, leadership without some degree of control is often ineffective. Control, in this context, does not mean command and dictate—it means ensuring that the Scrum framework is upheld, that organisational impediments are actively removed, and that the team operates within its defined constraints.

Some argue that the best Scrum Masters might be managers, while others argue that a Scrum Master should not have authority. Both perspectives have merit but must be contextualised.

• The idea that a Scrum Master can be a manager works in an organisation where a manager understands and embodies servant leadership. When a manager removes impediments, provides clarity, and champions agility without imposing control, they function effectively as a Scrum Master.
• The notion that a Scrum Master should not have authority assumes an ideal state where influence is enough. However, in many organisations, without a minimum level of authority—such as the ability to hold the team accountable for Scrum adoption or to challenge organisational constraints—Scrum Masters struggle to fulfil their accountability.

Practical Considerations

Scrum Masters must master the art of situational leadership. Some teams require a hands-off coach, while others benefit from more direct guidance. A Scrum Master should have the authority to:

• Enforce Scrum framework adherence when teams attempt to dilute its effectiveness.
• Challenge anti-patterns that hinder agility.
• Influence and escalate organisational impediments effectively.
• Ensure that the team continuously inspects, adapts, and improves.

Conclusion

Accountability without authority is a flawed concept. The Scrum Master, and the Product Owner, must operate within the context of their organisation, leveraging both influence and, where necessary, the authority to drive meaningful change. The key is not about wielding power but about ensuring the team is empowered while working within the system they are part of, always striving to evolve that system toward greater agility.

References:

• Why Does a Scrum Master Not Have Authority? 
• Your Next Scrum Master Should Be Your Manager