I've been a software architect for 25 years, mostly in banking infrastructure. Something that's been bothering me and I wanted to get HN's perspective on.
The Certified Scrum Master pipeline works roughly like this: a 2-day course, approximately $1,000, pass rates above 95%, and no engineering background required. The Scrum Alliance has certified over 1.4 million people through this process.
After certification, many of these folks land roles paying $90K-$130K facilitating sprints, standups, and retros for teams of senior engineers.I'v e worked with good Scrum Masters who genuinely helped teams. I want to be clear about that. But the structural model seems odd to me:
The certification requires zero technical knowledge, yet the role involves managing a technical team's workflow daily.
A mid-level engineer with 5 years of experience writing production code often earns a comparable salary to the person facilitating their meetings.
The certification body has a direct financial incentive to expand the perceived necessity of the role. More essential the role seems, more certs sold. At $1K per cert and 1.4M certified, that's $1.4B in certification revenue alone.
In most teams I've observed, removing the SM role would redistribute about 30 minutes of weekly facilitation across people who already understand the work better than the SM does.
The counter-arguments I can think of:
Not every team has a tech lead who wants to handle process. Fair point. But that's an argument for better leadership, not a separate process role.
SMs handle organizational impediments. True in some orgs. But in practice, most impediment removal I've seen is a management function that existed before Scrum.
The role protects the team from outside interference. Valid, but you don't need a certification for that. You need someone with organizational authority, which the SM role often lacks anyway.
I'm not arguing that every SM is useless. I'm questioning whether a 2-day certification with no technical prerequisites is a sound foundation for a six-figure role managing engineering teams.
Has anyone here worked in an organization that genuinely benefited from having a dedicated Scrum Master? What made it work vs. the cases where it didn't?
The Certified Scrum Master pipeline works roughly like this: a 2-day course, approximately $1,000, pass rates above 95%, and no engineering background required. The Scrum Alliance has certified over 1.4 million people through this process.
After certification, many of these folks land roles paying $90K-$130K facilitating sprints, standups, and retros for teams of senior engineers.I'v e worked with good Scrum Masters who genuinely helped teams. I want to be clear about that. But the structural model seems odd to me:
The certification requires zero technical knowledge, yet the role involves managing a technical team's workflow daily. A mid-level engineer with 5 years of experience writing production code often earns a comparable salary to the person facilitating their meetings.
The certification body has a direct financial incentive to expand the perceived necessity of the role. More essential the role seems, more certs sold. At $1K per cert and 1.4M certified, that's $1.4B in certification revenue alone.
In most teams I've observed, removing the SM role would redistribute about 30 minutes of weekly facilitation across people who already understand the work better than the SM does.
The counter-arguments I can think of:
Not every team has a tech lead who wants to handle process. Fair point. But that's an argument for better leadership, not a separate process role.
SMs handle organizational impediments. True in some orgs. But in practice, most impediment removal I've seen is a management function that existed before Scrum.
The role protects the team from outside interference. Valid, but you don't need a certification for that. You need someone with organizational authority, which the SM role often lacks anyway.
I'm not arguing that every SM is useless. I'm questioning whether a 2-day certification with no technical prerequisites is a sound foundation for a six-figure role managing engineering teams.
Has anyone here worked in an organization that genuinely benefited from having a dedicated Scrum Master? What made it work vs. the cases where it didn't?