As a functional manager to six ScrumMasters, I am facing a dilemma: on one hand, our company has a flexible work policy that includes giving employees an opportunity to work from home, and on the other hand, most of our agile teams are primarily collocated, thus making the absence of a ScrumMaster onsite noticeable.
Being remote makes osmotic communication impossible, which in turn means that your team ends up losing one of the primary benefits of co-location; Alistair Cockburn defines osmotic communication as “information that flows into the background hearing of members of the team, so that they pick up relevant information as though by osmosis.”
Although, we now have an arsenal of state-of-the-art remote communication tools, ranging from Adobe Connect to Google Hangouts, that can help with a collocated team. Most of our dedicated Scrum rooms have large screens, so remote participants are fully incorporated in all team ceremonies. At the same time, the teams rely on the ScrumMaster to update physical information radiators, start conference calls, set up equipment for demos, and many other things that are normally done on site. This also brings up a point that maybe teams can become more independent rather than relying on their ScrumMasters for logistics.
It is my responsibility as a functional manager to approve or disapprove the ScrumMaster’s application for a so-called “flexible work arrangement,” and it is not an easy decision. I want to support ScrumMasters, but I do not want their absence to hurt the team. What should I do? To find out, I posted this question and a simple poll on LinkedIn.
Initially, I hesitated because I was not sure if this is a problem for anyone else. Well it is, because I got such an overwhelming number of responses to my posting within two days that it made me “person of the week” within my group on LinkedIn. So, what do people think?
Here is the poll result:
Can a ScrumMaster for a mostly collocated team work from home once a week, without any impact to the team?
Two days—Forty votes
- Will have no or low impact—9 votes (22 percent)
- Yes, it promotes team self-organization—12 votes (30 percent)
- Sure, just make sure there are tools—10 votes (25 percent)
- No, loss of productivity is possible—1 vote (2 percent)
- No way, this is not good for the team—8 votes (20 percent)
Responses varied from statements like “If a ScrumMaster worked remotely even part-time do not call this person a ScrumMaster no matter how efficient she is” to “Wake up! This is the year 2012. Remote work is becoming a norm, so why would you question something that is an integral part of everyone’s life?”
Those who were in favor of a remote ScrumMaster concept had positive experience working remotely in different roles on agile teams. They stated that having proper technology in place was a prerequisite for working remotely, but once the tools are in place, there is no loss of value or time. One respondent even stated that while there may be some loss of communication effectiveness, there “Might be a real benefit from the ScrumMaster not being physically present, in that people would no longer be able to look at the ScrumMaster and report the status to him or her…This would reduce the ‘manager effect’ of the ScrumMaster being physically present and ‘running’ the meeting, and would therefore contribute to team self-organization.”
Some supporters of the “remote ScrumMaster” concept stated that they have been doing it for a long time—at least once a week—and felt that if the team was truly self-organized, this should present no issues at all.”
Negative opinions were very emotional. Some of them were purely theoretical; some were influenced by the respondents’ negative personal experience. The strongest opinion was the following: “I don't think you should call it ‘ScrumMaster’ and maybe you should ask: ‘Am I placing the ScrumMaster label on something else?’”