Balance of Leadership and Control in Scrum

Published on
4 minute read

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.

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:

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:

Accountability Scrum Product Development Scrum Team Scrum Master Professional Scrum Technical Leadership Agile Product Management People and Process Agile Leadership Team Performance

Related blog posts

Related videos

Connect with Martin Hinshelwood

If you've made it this far, it's worth connecting with our principal consultant and coach, Martin Hinshelwood, for a 30-minute 'ask me anything' call.

Our Happy Clients​

We partner with businesses across diverse industries, including finance, insurance, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, technology, engineering, transportation, hospitality, entertainment, legal, government, and military sectors.​

Teleplan Logo
Epic Games Logo

NIT A/S

Freadom Logo
Lockheed Martin Logo
Flowmaster (a Mentor Graphics Company) Logo
MacDonald Humfrey (Automation) Ltd. Logo
ProgramUtvikling Logo
Boxit Document Solutions Logo
YearUp.org Logo
Akaditi Logo
Philips Logo
Graham & Brown Logo

CR2

SuperControl Logo
Emerson Process Management Logo
Illumina Logo
Slicedbread Logo
Nottingham County Council Logo
Washington Department of Enterprise Services Logo
Ghana Police Service Logo
Washington Department of Transport Logo
New Hampshire Supreme Court Logo
Royal Air Force Logo

CR2

Genus Breeding Ltd Logo
Xceptor - Process and Data Automation Logo
New Signature Logo
Hubtel Ghana Logo
Philips Logo