Scrum Reveals Dysfunctional Power Dynamics
In 2006 Ken Schwaber, co-creator of Scrum, publish a shot 15 point paper about the likely impact of Scrum on that organisations. He titled that paper “Scrum is Hard and Disruptive”. It discusses many of the same issues as Kane’s Law, Larman’s Law and Conway’s Law. Ken clearly understood the relationship between structure and power even if the article wasn't presented that way.
I thought it would be interesting to discuss specifically how Scrum exposes power dynamics. This is again, as section from my book in progress.
At the heart of Scrum lies a fundamental shift: empowerment. This often challenges traditional hierarchies where middle management controls workflows. A study by the Center for Effective Organizations (2020) found that 65% of organizations identify middle management resistance as a key barrier to Agile success, highlighting the structural and cultural barriers Scrum implementations frequently encounter.
Scrum teams are designed to be self-organizing, meaning they have the authority to make decisions about how to deliver their assigned work. Instead of waiting for approvals from multiple layers of management, Scrum teams operate with autonomy, defining their work in short, iterative cycles (called sprints) and continuously adjusting based on feedback (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2020).
In traditional hierarchies, decision-making authority is centralized in middle or upper management, and processes are often designed to maintain control rather than promote flexibility. In such environments, introducing Scrum is more than a procedural change —it challenges the very foundations of the power structure (Kotter, 1996).
Here’s how Scrum exposes these power dynamics:
- Flattening Hierarchies: Scrum’s emphasis on self- organizing teams reduces the role of middle management. Teams are empowered to make day-to-day decisions, challenging the traditional management layers that have historically controlled workflows and approvals (Larman & Vodde, 2008).
- Transparency: Scrum increases visibility into inefficiencies. Practices like daily stand-ups, retrospectives, and sprint reviews force teams to surface problems early, whether they are technical, operational, or managerial. This transparency often reveals bottlenecks and power imbalances that might otherwise remain hidden (Cohn, 2009).
- Decentralized Decision-Making: In Scrum, the Product Owner prioritizes the work, but the team decides how to execute it. This decentralization of decision-making directly challenges traditional management roles, where directives typically come from above (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2020).
As a result, Scrum does not merely change how work is done—it redefines who gets to decide how work is done. This shift in power dynamics is a key reason why Scrum implementations often face resistance, particularly from middle management, who may perceive their authority as being eroded (Larman & Vodde, 2008).