Double-Linking and Power Balance in Scrum
The great breaktrough of the Scrum framework is the Scrum Master role. Why? Because it adds counterweight and generates balance of power in the system.
In traditional organizations, the link of coordination, communication and decision-making between the current and next higher level in the organogram is the manager. This person, the boss, represents the interests of the higher group in the management layer and generates pressure into the lower one, demanding performance, deliverables and compliance. In such an environment, people fight for climbing the ladder and praise their supervisors for getting a promotion, and when they get it, they do the same. In software development, we have a role called Project Manager. The most common practice for the PM is to stress his or her teams without regard to almost anything else than what the higher-level group wants. Normally, there is no one with the same level of power to protect the team, and so, the interests of the lower group are neglected.
There is another way
Sociocracy — a system of governance that uses consent-based decision-making — introduces a concept called Double-Linking. Instead of having a single point of contact between two levels in the hierarchy, the structures are connected through a leader appointed by the higher circle and a representative elected by the lower one.
In Holacracy — an organizational governance framework based on Sociocracy — the leader appointed by the higher circle is the Lead Link. The Lead Link represents the interests of the higher circle and is responsible for setting priorities to the lower one. The representative elected by the lower circle, called Rep Link in Holacracy, represents the interests of the lower circle into the higher one. Both links take part in the decision-making process and meetings of both circles. Hence, the Rep Link can raise an Objection when the decision at stake may negatively impact the group that he represents. This dynamic generates a balance of power since the needs of both levels are considered.
Product Owner and Lead Link
When comparing Holacracy with Scrum, I tend to think that the Product Owner is very similar to the Lead Link. He is responsible for maximizing the return on investment, prioritizing the Product Backlog and pushing the team to build the best possible product. But the Product Owner is not a Project Manager. Neither the Lead Link. These roles do not hold the same level of power as the PM. In Scrum and Holacracy, these responsibilities are spread throughout different roles.
Scrum Master and Rep Link
Fortunately, there is another role in Scrum — the Scrum Master — who represents the needs of the team and tells the Product: “Calm down. We’ll build the best product, but these are people, and we need to take care of them”. So, the Scrum Master pulls the team back.
You may think that in Scrum there is no governance and the Scrum Master is not supposed to take part of any meetings outside of the Scrum team. That is somewhat true, but one of the Scrum Master's responsibilities is to cause organizational change that increases the performance of the team. This means that a good Scrum Master will be involved in a lot of politics and will need to influence many people in the outer environment — the organization — in order to induce these changes. Therefore, he will represent the needs of the team at the higher level, just like the Rep Link in Holacracy.
Balance of Power
Just like in Holacracy and Sociocracy, it seems like Scrum includes the Double-Linking principle. Whether this was intentional by Ken Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland, I don't know. What I am sure is that the inclusion of the Scrum Master role causes a better distribution of authority and makes it one of the greatest breakthroughs of the framework.
Can you see other elements of Sociocracy and Holacracy in Scrum?
