Should a Scrum Master Be Temporary or Permanent?

One of the most common dilemmas in agile work is this: Should a Scrum Master be a temporary catalyst who moves on once a team matures, or a permanent fixture who stays to maintain structure and rhythm?

There are arguments for both sides. The temporarists might say that a truly mature team should be able to self-manage. The permanentists counter that complexity never really goes away and every team deserves a steady guide to navigate it.

In my view, a Scrum Master’s persistence should be evaluated case by case based on business environment and larger organisation’s needs. It’s perfectly fine to leave a team to self-manage if it truly is a team (and not a group), and if another team needs more support.

My upcoming team theory, Teamdom, describes specialized “open teams” that don’t necessarily need a single leader. Leadership there is situational and shared, much like in military squads or police tactical units operating in chaotic environments.

Teams aren’t eternal constructs either, they have life cycles. As they approach their end before a dignified dismantling, an agile team rarely needs a Scrum Master anymore. On the other hand, in case of a reteaming, a SM presence can be beneficial.

So, whether a Scrum Master should aim to make themselves obsolete or irreplaceable is a personal choice, but I’d lean toward the obsolete side.

But maybe the real question is: Do we measure a Scrum Master’s success by team merits or by how unnecessary they eventually become? In any case, I suspect this dilemma is a kind that we‘ll never find a fixed answer, and it‘s OK.