The Scrum Master’s role is to foster an environment of psychological safety where teams can discuss difficult issues. Option 3 directly addresses this by using a facilitation technique (like anonymous sticky notes or a digital tool) to protect team members while still bringing the critical impediment to light. This balances respect for the team’s comfort with the responsibility to address serious impediments to productivity.

The core issue is a lack of a clear, shared product goal. Without this, prioritization becomes a battle of opinions. Option 2 addresses the root cause by guiding the Product Owner to their accountability for maximizing product value. Facilitating a stakeholder alignment session around a clear product goal provides the necessary context for making informed ordering decisions, which is more sustainable than a one-time vote or a single-dimension metric like ROI.

A 50% reduction is a symptom of a deeper problem. The Scrum Master’s role is to help the team inspect and adapt their process. Option 3 promotes empiricism by guiding the team to analyze *why* they have been over-committing. The solution may lie in improving backlog refinement, addressing hidden work (like unaccounted-for debt), or refining their forecasting techniques, rather than simply applying an arbitrary cut.

The Sprint Review is a collaborative workshop, not a one-way demo. Passive stakeholders often indicate the event is not structured for conversation. Option 2 correctly identifies that the team might be focusing on *what* was built rather than *why* it was built and *what* should be done next. The Scrum Master should coach the team to frame the discussion around the Sprint Goal and the product’s future, actively seeking stakeholder opinions and feedback.

Scrum is founded on collaboration, not rigid rules or escalation. Option 2 embodies a servant-leader approach. The Scrum Master facilitates a conversation between the team and the Product Owner to find a mutually agreeable, practical solution. This strengthens the relationship and creates a sustainable practice, rather than imposing a rule (Option 1) which may not work for the Product Owner’s context.

Self-management is about the team internally organizing its work and addressing its own challenges. Option 2 demonstrates this in practice: team members are driving their own planning, coordination, and problem-solving within the event. While cross-training (Option 4) is beneficial, it is a capability, not a direct behavior of self-organization. Meeting estimates (Option 1) is an outcome, not a behavior, and can sometimes be achieved through unhealthy practices.

Scrum values empiricism and self-management. A key pillar of the Retrospective is for the *team* to inspect and adapt *its own* process. A mandated, standardized format undermines this principle. Option 4 correctly balances the organization’s desire for improvement with Scrum’s values. The Scrum Master can act as a connector, sharing techniques and patterns, while upholding each team’s autonomy to choose what works for them.

The Sprint Retrospective is a formal opportunity to inspect and adapt the process. Major events like releases are rich sources of learning. Canceling it wastes that opportunity. Option 3 provides a strong, principled reason for holding the event, emphasizing its value in continuous improvement. The Scrum Master is protecting the integrity of the Scrum events and the team’s opportunity to improve.

The Daily Scrum’s purpose is to inspect progress toward the Sprint Goal and plan the next 24 hours of work. It is a planning meeting, not a problem-solving session. Option 3 reinforces the event’s purpose (the three questions) and provides a simple, practical rule—”take it offline”—to keep the event focused and engaging for all. This empowers the team to self-manage the boundary of the event.

The Scrum Master’s role is to foster an environment of psychological safety where teams can discuss difficult issues. Option 3 directly addresses this by using a facilitation technique (like anonymous sticky notes or a digital tool) to protect team members while still bringing the critical impediment to light. This balances respect for the team’s comfort with the responsibility to address serious impediments to productivity.0