We don't do "pure" Scrum here

"We don't do 'pure' Scrum here"

Unfortunately, I have heard this all too often in recent weeks while setting up a new scrum team.  Other parts of the organization are having good and long term successes with scrum, but a different team manager has shown some resistance.

While reading Richard Hundhausen's book "Professional Scrum Development with Microsoft Visual Studio 2012" I found a great analogy for just this attitude:

"You can think of Scrum as being like chess.  Both have rules.  For example, Scrum doesn't allow two Product Owners just as chess doesn't allow [a player to have] two kings.  When you play chess, it is expected that you will play by the rules.  If you don't, you are not playing chess.

It is the same with Scrum. Another way to think about it is that both scrum and chess do not fail or succeed. Only the players fail or succeed.  Those who keep playing by the rules will eventually improve, though it may take a long time to master the game."

and those who do not play by the rules will never master the game.  and in fact are playing a flawed game, at best an untried, patchwork game of rules that are cherry-picked with no evidence or experience of their effectiveness.

in short, there is no "pure" Scrum.  You either Scrum, or you do not.

The Scrum Master

Recently, I have been enjoying reading "Professional Scrum Development with Microsoft Visual Studio 2012" by Richard Hundhausen.

One important thing that he reminded me of, about being a scrum master, was the servant leader attitude, eloquently encompassed by the words of Lao Tzu in the Tao Te Ching:

"When the master governs, the people are hardly aware that he exists.  Next best is a leader who is loved. Next is one who is feared. The worst is one who is despised.  If you don't trust people, you make them untrustworthy. The master doesn't talk, he acts. When his work is done, the people say "Amazing, we did it, all by ourselves!"