Prepare for Scrum.org Professional Scrum Master II (PSM II) with free sample questions, a 30-question full-length diagnostic, topic drills, timed mock exams, advanced facilitation, coaching, teaching, mentoring, leadership, and organizational-impediment scenarios, and detailed explanations in PM Mastery.
Start a practice session for Scrum.org Professional Scrum Master II (PSM II) below, or open the full app in a new tab. For the best experience, open the full app in a new tab and navigate with swipes/gestures or the mouse wheel—just like on your phone or tablet.
Open Full App in a New TabA small set of questions is available for free preview. Subscribers can unlock full access by signing in with the same app-family account they use on web and mobile.
Use on iPhone or Android too: PM Mastery on the App Store or PM Mastery on Google Play using the same PM Mastery account you use on web. The same PM Mastery subscription works across web and mobile.
Free diagnostic: Try the 30-question PSM II full-length practice exam before subscribing. Use it to check whether your misses are about facilitation, coaching, teaching, mentoring, leadership style, or organizational impediments.
PSM II is Scrum.org’s advanced Professional Scrum Master II assessment. Use this page when you already understand the Scrum Guide well enough for PSM I, but now need harder facilitation, coaching, and organizational judgment before moving into full PM Mastery practice.
PSM II questions usually reward the action that protects empiricism, strengthens team self-management, and improves Scrum adoption in difficult real-world situations rather than choosing the most forceful or process-heavy response.
Official source check: Last checked: May 5, 2026. Scrum.org lists PSM II as 30 questions in 90 minutes with an 85% passing score, and notes that partial credit is provided on some questions. Use Scrum.org for final exam-day rules; use PM Mastery for original advanced Scrum Master practice.
| Focus area | Weight |
|---|---|
| Facilitation | 31.8% |
| Coaching | 28.7% |
| Teaching | 17.6% |
| Mentoring | 15.4% |
| Leadership Styles | 6.5% |
PSM II scenarios are usually not solved by quoting Scrum mechanics. Use these filters to choose a professional Scrum Master response.
| Scenario signal | First check | Strong answer usually… | Weak answer usually… |
|---|---|---|---|
| A team understands Scrum but avoids a hard conversation | Facilitation and empiricism | Creates a safe structure for inspection, transparency, and shared commitment | Solves the issue privately for the team |
| Management incentives harm Scrum | Organizational impediment | Makes the impact transparent and coaches leaders toward system-level change | Blames the team for symptoms caused by the system |
| The Product Owner is ineffective | Coaching and accountability | Coaches the Product Owner while preserving their accountability | Takes over backlog or stakeholder decisions |
| Developers lack ownership | Self-management | Helps the team inspect working agreements, skills, and impediments | Assigns work or mandates a process fix |
| Stakeholders misuse metrics | Metric ethics and learning | Reframes metrics around outcomes, transparency, and improvement | Uses metrics to rank individuals or pressure commitments |
| A quick fix is requested | Teaching vs coaching vs mentoring | Chooses the right stance for the situation and maturity level | Defaults to telling people what to do |
| Focus area | What the exam tests | What PM Mastery practice should force | Common trap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facilitation | Whether the Scrum Master creates conditions for useful inspection and decision-making | Select structures that help people surface facts and decide together | Running the meeting for the team |
| Coaching | Whether people and teams discover better behavior through evidence and questions | Use coaching when ownership and learning matter | Giving advice too early |
| Teaching | Whether Scrum concepts are explained when knowledge is missing | Teach the concept without taking over accountability | Avoiding direct teaching when the team lacks basics |
| Mentoring | Whether experience is shared appropriately | Offer guidance while preserving choice and accountability | Turning mentoring into command |
| Leadership Styles | Whether the leadership stance fits the context | Adapt stance to maturity, risk, and learning need | Using one leadership style in every situation |
If you want concept-first reading before heavier simulator work, use the companion Scrum.org PSM II Study Guide on PMExams.com. Then return here for timed mocks, topic drills, explanations, and the full PM Mastery practice route.
Use these child pages when you want focused PM Mastery practice before returning to mixed sets and timed mocks.
Try these 24 public sample questions for PSM II. They are original PM Mastery practice items aligned to advanced Scrum Master facilitation, coaching, mentoring, leadership, and organizational-change scenarios. They are not Scrum.org exam questions and are not copied from any exam sponsor.
Topic: Developing People and Teams
A Scrum Team often leaves the Sprint Retrospective with several improvement ideas, but by mid-Sprint nobody can tell whether any are actually being tried. A department manager asks the Scrum Master for a weekly spreadsheet listing each action, its individual owner, and percent complete. The Scrum Master wants progress to be transparent without creating a parallel status process. Which accountability boundary best fits Scrum?
Best answer: A
Explanation: Improvement follow-through should be visible through normal Scrum transparency, not a separate reporting system. The Scrum Team owns its improvement work, while the Scrum Master helps the team learn, inspect progress, and remove impediments without becoming the team’s status reporter.
In Scrum, the Sprint Retrospective is where the Scrum Team plans ways to increase quality and effectiveness, and the most impactful improvements may be added to the Sprint Backlog for the next Sprint. That means visibility should come from the team’s actual work and inspections, not from a parallel spreadsheet that turns learning into compliance reporting.
Here, the right boundary is for the Scrum Team to select a concrete improvement, with Developers making the work transparent in the Sprint Backlog if it is part of the Sprint plan. The Scrum Master serves by facilitating the conversation, coaching the team to keep progress visible, and helping remove impediments the team cannot remove alone. This preserves self-management and keeps transparency tied to empiricism rather than managerial status tracking.
The key distinction is visibility of improvement work versus reporting on people.
This keeps improvement ownership with the Scrum Team, uses normal Scrum transparency, and preserves the Scrum Master’s service boundary.
Topic: Developing People and Teams
A Scrum Team repeatedly misses Sprint Goals because mandatory penetration testing is performed only by a centralized security group after the Sprint. The Developers want to learn the tools and include that testing in their normal work, and the Product Owner agrees the work is not Done until the testing is complete. Company policy forbids product teams from using the security environment. What is the best action for the Scrum Master?
Best answer: A
Explanation: The barrier is not a knowledge gap or a team conversation problem. It is an organizational policy outside the Scrum Team’s control, so the Scrum Master should focus on making the impediment transparent and helping remove it.
The decisive clue is that the Scrum Team already understands what Done means and has identified a way to improve, but company policy prevents them from acting. That makes this an organizational impediment, not primarily a facilitation, coaching, or teaching problem. In PSM II terms, the Scrum Master serves both the Scrum Team and the organization, so the best response is to expose the policy’s impact on Sprint Goals, quality, and delivery, then work with the security function and managers to change the conditions that block in-Sprint testing.
Facilitating more discussion, coaching finer slicing, or reteaching Scrum may help in other situations, but here they do not address the root cause outside the team’s control.
The team already understands the problem and has a viable direction, so the Scrum Master’s best stance is removing the organizational impediment blocking in-Sprint testing.
Topic: Evolving the Agile Organization
A director asks a Scrum Master for a dashboard showing each Scrum Team’s utilization and story points completed so leadership can identify the most “effective” team. One team completed many Product Backlog items last Sprint, but customer usage of recent features is flat, escaped defects have increased, and work often waits several days for architecture approval before it can meet the Definition of Done. What is the best response?
Best answer: D
Explanation: The best response is to make transparent evidence that shows outcomes, quality, and system constraints. That gives leadership something meaningful to inspect about Scrum Team effectiveness instead of reinforcing output-based comparison metrics.
At the organization level, the Scrum Master helps leaders learn through transparency. In this scenario, progress toward the Product Goal, real customer usage, defect trends relative to the Definition of Done, and delay caused by architecture approval show whether the Scrum Team is delivering valuable, high-quality Done work and where the system is reducing effectiveness.
Utilization and story points are weak measures for this purpose because they can reward local optimization and hide quality or value problems. Simply rejecting metrics, standardizing output targets, or making estimates more consistent does not give leaders better evidence. The key is to expose evidence that supports inspection and adaptation of both team outcomes and organizational conditions.
Leadership needs better transparency, not better output theater.
These measures expose outcomes, quality, and organizational blockers so leadership can inspect what is actually affecting effectiveness.
Topic: Developing People and Teams
A Scrum Master notices these recurring patterns: line managers join the Daily Scrum and assign work, urgent customer requests go directly to Developers, and Retrospectives repeatedly surface the same concern. Managers respond, “delivery dates matter more than team autonomy,” and Sprint Goals are often abandoned mid-Sprint. What is the most important implication for the Scrum Master to act on?
Best answer: C
Explanation: This pattern is bigger than a team-level habit problem. A true leader who serves the Scrum Team and the organization should recognize management behavior is disrupting self-management, Sprint focus, and Product Owner accountability, then work to change those conditions.
The key evidence is that the same problem keeps appearing in Retrospectives, yet its source is outside the Scrum Team: managers direct daily work, urgent requests bypass the Product Owner, and the organization explicitly values date pressure over team autonomy. That means the Scrum Master is not dealing with a simple team coaching issue; this is an organizational impediment affecting Scrum Team effectiveness.
A Scrum Master serves both the Scrum Team and the larger organization by making these effects transparent and helping leaders understand how their behavior weakens empiricism, self-management, and focus on the Sprint Goal. The right leadership stance is not to control the team more tightly, but to help the organization remove the conditions causing the dysfunction. A local workaround may reduce pain briefly, but it would not solve the real cause.
The repeated management behavior shows a broader organizational barrier that the Scrum Master should address to restore Scrum accountabilities and empiricism.
Topic: Evolving the Agile Organization
A product group has three Scrum Teams. Leadership says delivery is “unpredictable” and wants a weekly dashboard ranking teams by velocity and individual utilization. The Scrum Master finds that the implementation work on most Product Backlog items is finished within days, but the items then wait 5-8 days for an external security approval before they can meet the Definition of Done. Defects also rise after rushed approvals. Which response best exposes and addresses the real constraint?
Best answer: B
Explanation: The real issue is hidden waiting time and quality risk in an external approval step, not weak team effort. Using flow and quality evidence around that bottleneck improves transparency and supports adaptation without turning Scrum into status reporting or performance ranking.
For a Scrum Master serving the organization, metrics should expose how the system affects value delivery, not turn Scrum into a reporting framework. Here, the teams finish the implementation work quickly, but items sit waiting for external security approval before they are Done, and rushed approvals correlate with more defects. That indicates an organizational bottleneck and quality risk.
Useful evidence would make that delay visible end to end, such as blocked time, work item or queue age, and defect trends around the approval step. With that transparency, the Scrum Master can facilitate inspection with leaders and the affected teams to remove, redesign, or better integrate the approval activity. Velocity rankings, utilization dashboards, or individual productivity measures would optimize local output while hiding the real constraint.
The key takeaway is to use evidence to reveal system impediments, not to score people or teams.
These metrics reveal the external approval step as the system constraint and create transparency for organizational adaptation without ranking teams or individuals.
Topic: Scrum Master Accountability and Service
A new Scrum Team works on a complex product with many external dependencies. To keep work moving, the Product Owner now tells individual Developers what to pick up next and approves every Sprint Backlog change during the Daily Scrum. Stakeholders say this has reduced debate, but the last three Sprints had late surprises, weak Sprint Goal focus, and Retrospective notes that Developers “wait for direction.” What is the best Scrum Master response?
Best answer: C
Explanation: The short-term gain is less debate, but the evidence shows a deeper problem: the Product Owner is taking over Developers’ accountability for adapting the Sprint Backlog. The Scrum Master’s best response is to make that pattern visible, clarify accountabilities, and help the team regain self-management.
In Scrum, Developers are accountable for creating the plan for the Sprint and adapting it as needed to progress toward the Sprint Goal. The Product Owner is accountable for maximizing value through Product Backlog management, not assigning work or approving Sprint Backlog changes. Here, the apparent efficiency is masking damage to empiricism: late surprises, weak Sprint Goal focus, and a team that waits for direction instead of inspecting and adapting continuously.
A strong Scrum Master response is to use those signals to help the Product Owner and Developers inspect the pattern and correct the accountability gap:
Temporary control may feel helpful, but it creates dependency and reduces learning.
It restores the proper accountabilities while using the observed harms to strengthen self-management and empirical adaptation.
Topic: Scrum Master Accountability and Service
A Scrum Team has missed part of its Sprint Goal in 3 of the last 4 Sprints because a shared test environment can be reset only by an operations department. The Scrum Master already has evidence of the lost time from Sprint Retrospectives, and the Developers cannot change the access policy themselves. A senior manager asks the Scrum Master to start a weekly impediment status report for leadership. What should the Scrum Master do next?
Best answer: B
Explanation: The problem is already transparent, recurring, and outside the Developers’ control. The Scrum Master’s next step is to use that evidence to facilitate inspection and adaptation with the people who can remove or change the policy, not add another reporting artifact.
In Scrum, transparency matters only when it leads to inspection and adaptation. Here, the impediment is recurring, measurable, and caused by an organizational policy the Developers cannot change themselves. That makes it a right-level escalation and facilitation problem for the Scrum Master.
A strong next step is to bring together the affected Scrum Team members and the operations manager to inspect the impact, understand the policy constraint, and agree on a change or service improvement. This preserves accountabilities: the Scrum Master enables the conversation, the Developers explain the impact on delivery, and the responsible manager helps address the external constraint.
Adding a weekly blocker report would create more status visibility, but it would not improve the Scrum Team’s effectiveness by itself.
The impediment is already visible and outside the team’s control, so the next step is right-level facilitation toward organizational adaptation.
Topic: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
For six Sprints, the Developers have held a 15-minute Daily Scrum by taking turns answering the same three questions to the Scrum Master. The Sprint Goal is rarely mentioned, the Sprint Backlog is not updated during the event, and blockers often surface only near the end of the Sprint. The Product Owner asks the Scrum Master to “fix the meeting.” Select ONE. Which action best fits the Scrum Master’s accountability while respecting the Developers’ ownership of the event?
Best answer: B
Explanation: A mechanical Daily Scrum is a Scrum Master concern, but not by taking over the event. The best move is to help the Developers inspect whether the event creates transparency toward the Sprint Goal and facilitate them in improving how they use it.
The Daily Scrum exists for the Developers to inspect progress toward the Sprint Goal and adapt the Sprint Backlog as needed. In this scenario, the event has become a status ritual to the Scrum Master, so it is no longer producing useful transparency or enabling adaptation.
The Scrum Master’s accountability is to improve the Scrum Team’s effectiveness by teaching Scrum and facilitating better use of its events. That means helping the Developers understand the Daily Scrum’s purpose, making the dysfunction visible, and supporting them in redesigning the conversation so they inspect progress and adjust their plan themselves.
Taking over the event, shifting it to Product Owner control, or using managers for compliance may increase reporting, but they weaken self-management and miss the inspect-and-adapt purpose.
This improves the Daily Scrum through teaching and facilitation while keeping ownership of the event and Sprint Backlog adaptation with the Developers.
Topic: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
During a two-week Sprint, a Scrum Team is working toward a Sprint Goal to reduce checkout failures. Mid-Sprint, a sales director asks two Developers for a customer-specific enhancement by end of day, support managers send production defects directly to Developers, and the PMO asks for daily task-level status slides. The Product Owner says, “Just fit in whatever seems most urgent.” The Developers are now switching work several times a day and progress toward the Sprint Goal is slipping. What is the best action for the Scrum Master?
Best answer: C
Explanation: The Scrum Master should coach around the Scrum value of Focus, not respond with extra control or rigid blocking. Using the Sprint Goal to inspect urgent requests keeps product decisions with the Product Owner, preserves Developers’ ownership of the Sprint Backlog, and makes the impact of interruptions visible.
Focus in Scrum means concentrating on the work of the Sprint and progress toward the Sprint Goal. In this situation, the main problem is not just too many requests; it is that interruptions are bypassing Scrum accountabilities and hiding their cost. The Scrum Master should help the Product Owner and Developers inspect each request against the Sprint Goal, make trade-offs transparent to requestors, and reinforce that product priority decisions do not come from whoever shouts loudest. Developers still adapt their plan, but they should not be pulled in multiple directions by external demand. If new information changes what is most valuable, the Product Owner and Developers can renegotiate the Sprint Backlog. Extra reporting or command-and-control triage would increase distraction rather than strengthen focus.
This restores focus by making trade-offs transparent and keeping adaptation and priority decisions within the proper Scrum accountabilities.
Topic: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
A Scrum Team’s Sprint Review has become tense. Stakeholders often point out that recent Increments are difficult to use because of integration gaps and missing support documentation. To reduce conflict, the Product Owner proposes replacing the live product inspection with a recorded demo and collecting feedback afterward in private conversations. As Scrum Master, what is the best response? Select ONE.
Best answer: A
Explanation: The proposed format change hides useful evidence instead of improving the Sprint Review. The tension comes from real stakeholder concerns about the Increment, and those concerns should stay visible so the Scrum Team and stakeholders can inspect and adapt together.
The core issue is not that the Sprint Review feels uncomfortable; it is that stakeholders are exposing important product and quality concerns. In Scrum, the Sprint Review exists to inspect the outcome of the Sprint with stakeholders and determine future adaptations. Replacing live inspection with a recorded demo or filtered follow-up may feel smoother, but it reduces transparency and weakens shared learning.
A format change is only helpful if it improves the event’s purpose, not if it hides evidence people do not like hearing.
This preserves the Sprint Review’s purpose of transparent inspection with stakeholders so the Scrum Team can adapt based on real feedback.
Topic: Evolving the Agile Organization
A senior manager asks a Scrum Master to create a dashboard for six Scrum Teams showing velocity, utilization, and a single productivity score so leaders can “see who is performing.” The manager says the goal is better organizational transparency and faster intervention. What is the best response from the Scrum Master?
Best answer: C
Explanation: The best move is to reframe the request around the decisions leaders need to make, not around ranking teams. Organizational transparency improves when evidence exposes outcomes, quality, and systemic impediments that support inspection and adaptation.
In Scrum, transparency exists to enable empiricism, not to create a reporting or performance-ranking system. When leaders ask for productivity scores, the Scrum Master should help them clarify what decisions they are actually trying to make, such as where support is needed, what risks are growing, or whether product outcomes are improving. From there, evidence should focus on value, quality, and organizational impediments rather than comparing teams by local output measures.
Standardizing or expanding reports may look more orderly, but it reinforces control and comparison instead of better transparency.
This keeps metrics tied to inspection and adaptation while avoiding comparison systems that distort Scrum Team behavior.
Topic: Developing People and Teams
A Scrum Team has completed four Sprints with stable quality and no major external blockers. In each Sprint Retrospective, Developers respectfully raise useful improvement ideas and can explain Scrum well, but the discussion ends with a long list of actions and no clear choice, so nothing changes in the next Sprint. The Product Owner is supportive and there is no sign of personal conflict. What is the Scrum Master’s best next action?
Best answer: C
Explanation: This is primarily a decision-process problem. The stem rules out a Scrum knowledge gap, skill gap, interpersonal conflict, and organizational impediment, so the Scrum Master should facilitate a better way for the Scrum Team to decide and make the improvement visible.
The key issue is not lack of Scrum knowledge, lack of technical skill, conflict, or an external blocker. The Scrum Team can explain Scrum, interacts respectfully, and has no stated organizational constraint. The problem is that the group does not converge on a decision, so the Retrospective produces ideas without adaptation. In that situation, the Scrum Master’s best stance is facilitation.
That preserves self-management because the Scrum Team still chooses the improvement; the Scrum Master improves the decision process rather than deciding for them.
The evidence points to a decision-process problem, so facilitation that helps the Scrum Team choose and follow through on one improvement is the best stance.
Topic: Evolving the Agile Organization
A company creates an “Agile Transformation Office” to remove impediments across several Scrum Teams. One recurring impediment is a mandatory release approval step owned by another department that adds 10 days after every Sprint. The office proposes a weekly ticket queue for Scrum Masters and a monthly steering committee to review impediments. Teams will not speak directly with the policy owners. As a Scrum Master, what is the best response?
Best answer: A
Explanation: The best choice treats the approval policy as an organizational impediment and makes its impact visible to the right people. It avoids turning impediment removal into an administrative queue and instead enables direct inspection and adaptation that can improve Scrum Team effectiveness.
A Scrum Master helps remove impediments in ways that strengthen empiricism and Scrum Team effectiveness, not by creating a separate bureaucracy around the problem. In this scenario, the risk is that the transformation office turns impediment removal into ticket processing and delayed governance while the real constraint remains unchanged.
Making the delay transparent with evidence of harm to Sprint Goals, then facilitating a conversation with the policy owners and affected teams, creates direct feedback, shared understanding, and a chance to adapt the system causing the impediment. That is organization-level service by the Scrum Master.
The key distinction is whether the action changes conditions for the Scrum Teams or merely manages the appearance of action.
This improves effectiveness by increasing transparency and enabling the people involved to inspect the real constraint and adapt it directly.
Topic: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
Select ONE. For three Sprints in a row, the Developers stop when they disagree about task ownership or sequencing and ask the Scrum Master to decide. The Sprint Goal is clear, the Product Owner is available, and no external impediment exists. Which intervention best fits Scrum accountabilities and helps the team improve?
Best answer: A
Explanation: This is a self-management boundary issue, not a missing authority issue. The Developers are accountable for their Sprint Backlog plan and for deciding how to turn selected work into a Done Increment, so the Scrum Master should coach and facilitate rather than decide for them.
In Scrum, the Scrum Master is accountable for the Scrum Team’s effectiveness and for helping the team understand and use Scrum well. That does not make the Scrum Master the owner of day-to-day execution choices. Here, the Sprint Goal is clear and there is no external blocker, so disagreement about task ownership or sequencing remains with the Developers.
The best intervention is to help the Developers inspect the situation and make their own decision. That can include facilitation and coaching, such as:
This preserves self-management and reduces future dependency. Personally making the call may feel efficient, but it weakens the Developers’ accountability for their own plan.
These choices belong to the Developers, so the Scrum Master should build their ability to decide rather than taking over.
Topic: Scrum Master Accountability and Service
A Scrum Team has missed its Definition of Done in two consecutive Sprints because testing and integration are left until the end. The Developers have the needed skills, but in the Daily Scrum they report to the Scrum Master and wait for task assignments before adapting the Sprint Backlog. The Product Owner asks the Scrum Master to “take control for a while.” Which response best fits the Scrum Master’s accountability and boundary? Select ONE.
Best answer: B
Explanation: The Scrum Master serves the team by improving its effectiveness, not by becoming the daily work director. Since the Developers already have the needed skills, the right boundary is to help them use the Daily Scrum well, collaborate better, and adapt their own Sprint Backlog to create a Done Increment.
In Scrum, the Developers are accountable for creating the plan for the Sprint, adapting that plan each day, and creating a Done Increment that meets the Definition of Done. The Scrum Master is accountable for the Scrum Team’s effectiveness, so the right service here is to help the Developers inspect why testing and integration are delayed, improve collaboration, and use the Daily Scrum for replanning toward the Sprint Goal.
That support can include facilitation, coaching, and teaching the purpose of the Daily Scrum. It should not turn into task assignment or day-to-day direction. Having the Scrum Master, Product Owner, or a functional manager decide who does what may create short-term control, but it weakens self-management and shifts accountability away from the Developers. The better move is to strengthen the team’s own ability to coordinate and finish work to Done.
This preserves the Developers’ ownership of Sprint execution while the Scrum Master improves effectiveness through coaching and facilitation.
Topic: Developing People and Teams
Two department leaders tell a Scrum Master to “tighten discipline” on a Scrum Team. They want the Scrum Master to approve any Sprint Backlog changes after Sprint Planning and send a weekly report naming Developers who did not follow the original task plan. The team usually meets its Sprint Goal, but a shared test environment owned by another department regularly disrupts work. What is the best action?
Best answer: A
Explanation: The best response preserves self-management and focuses on the real obstacle to effectiveness. In Scrum, Developers own adapting the Sprint Backlog, so the Scrum Master should not become an approver or compliance reporter. Serving the leaders means helping them remove conditions that reduce the Scrum Team’s effectiveness.
A Scrum Master is accountable for the Scrum Team’s effectiveness, not for enforcing compliance theater. The Sprint Backlog belongs to the Developers, and they are expected to adapt their plan during the Sprint as they inspect progress toward the Sprint Goal. In this scenario, the leaders are optimizing for conformance to an original task plan, while the stem identifies a more important issue: a shared test environment outside the team’s control is disrupting delivery. The stronger response is to teach the leaders how Scrum uses empiricism and self-management, make that organizational impediment transparent, and help remove it. That improves outcomes without taking ownership away from the Developers. Turning the Scrum Master into an approver or individual compliance reporter would create dependency and hide the actual problem.
This preserves Developers’ self-management and redirects leadership attention to the systemic impediment affecting effectiveness.
Topic: Scrum Master Accountability and Service
A Product Owner supports two products and often misses refinement. Stakeholders send “urgent” requests directly to Developers, so the Scrum Master has started reordering the Product Backlog each week to keep Sprint Planning moving. The team now discovers conflicting priorities late in the Sprint, and Sprint Reviews produce little useful adaptation. Which change best restores the right accountability boundary?
Best answer: D
Explanation: The issue is misplaced accountability, not missing activity. When the Scrum Master or others make Product Backlog trade-offs, product decisions become less transparent and inspection at the Sprint Review is weakened. Restoring Product Owner accountability best improves transparency, adaptation, and Scrum Team effectiveness.
In this scenario, Product Backlog ordering has drifted away from the Product Owner. That reduces transparency because stakeholders, Developers, and the Sprint Review no longer see one clear owner for value decisions and trade-offs. The Scrum Master should not solve that by becoming the interim decision maker; the Scrum Master serves by exposing the accountability gap, coaching stakeholders to stop bypassing the Product Owner, and helping the organization address the Product Owner’s availability problem.
When value decisions are made by the right person, inspection and adaptation improve because the whole Scrum Team can work from transparent product choices rather than side agreements.
Product value trade-offs and Product Backlog ordering belong with the Product Owner, while the Scrum Master helps make that boundary visible and workable.
Topic: Scrum Master Accountability and Service
After two missed Sprint Goals in three Sprints, the Product Owner says the Product Backlog items must be smaller, several Developers say the team needs a dedicated tester, and the engineering manager asks for daily status reports. The Scrum Master notices that no one has yet inspected evidence about interruptions, work not meeting the Definition of Done, or changes made during the Sprint. What is the best next step for the Scrum Master?
Best answer: A
Explanation: An expert Scrum Master first helps people inspect the system they are working in. Because the group is debating remedies without shared evidence, the next step is to facilitate review of recent Sprint data and observations so causes become visible before anyone chooses a fix.
The Scrum Master’s strongest move here is to increase transparency and frame the issue as a cause-inspection problem, not a solution contest. People are already advocating favorite remedies, but they do not yet share evidence about what actually led to the missed Sprint Goals. A skilled Scrum Master facilitates inspection so the Scrum Team can separate symptoms from causes and then adapt empirically.
Prescribing smaller items, adding specialists, or adding reporting before this diagnosis step replaces empiricism with opinion or control.
It creates shared transparency about actual causes so adaptation follows evidence instead of opinion.
Topic: Evolving the Agile Organization
A Scrum Team’s Sprint Goals are often missed even though several Product Backlog items are finished each Sprint. Quarterly bonuses are based on individual utilization and the number of items each person completes. Developers now avoid helping each other, hide integration problems until late in the Sprint, and compete for high-visibility work. A manager tells the Scrum Master to “address the weak performers.”
What is the best action for the Scrum Master?
Best answer: C
Explanation: This is primarily a culture and incentive problem, not just an individual performance problem. The reward system encourages local optimization, weakens transparency, and undermines teamwork, so the Scrum Master should help the organization inspect and change that system.
In Scrum, the Scrum Master serves not only the Scrum Team but also the organization. Here, the repeated behaviors are predictable responses to management incentives: people optimize for individual bonuses instead of Sprint Goal progress, shared quality, and a Done Increment. That weakens empiricism because important problems stay hidden until late.
A strong Scrum Master response is to make the pattern visible with evidence such as missed Sprint Goals, late integration issues, and reduced collaboration, then coach managers toward measures and behaviors that reinforce team effectiveness rather than individual competition. Individual coaching may still help, but it is secondary when the system itself rewards the wrong outcomes.
The key takeaway is to treat recurring anti-Scrum behavior as a systemic organizational impediment when the culture is rewarding it.
The behavior is being reinforced by the reward system, so the Scrum Master should address the cultural cause rather than treat it mainly as an individual defect.
Topic: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
A Scrum Master reviews the last three Sprint Reviews and notes:
Stakeholders say, “This meeting mainly gives us progress visibility and approvals.” What is the best interpretation?
Best answer: B
Explanation: The evidence shows the event is no longer being used to inspect the Increment with stakeholders and adapt the Product Backlog. Approval decisions and deferred discussion have replaced the Sprint Review’s real purpose with reporting and sign-off behavior.
The core issue is misuse of the Sprint Review. In Scrum, Sprint Review is the event where the Scrum Team and stakeholders inspect the outcome of the Sprint and determine future adaptations. Here, the manager’s approve/reject action creates a gate, stakeholder questions are pushed elsewhere, and little Product Backlog adaptation follows the meeting. Those are strong signals that the event is functioning as a reporting and sign-off step rather than as an empirical working session about product value.
Better facilitation may help participation, but it does not solve an event whose purpose has been replaced by governance workflow.
Sprint Review exists to inspect the Sprint outcome with stakeholders and adapt what to do next, not to serve as reporting or approval theater.
Topic: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
A Scrum Team has missed two Sprint Goals. To “stabilize delivery,” the Product Owner now assigns Product Backlog items to individual Developers during Sprint Planning, and the Scrum Master reassigns work during the Daily Scrum when items slip. Stakeholders say they still cannot tell whether the main problem is product direction, execution, or organizational impediments. Which accountability boundary should be restored first? Select ONE.
Best answer: B
Explanation: The key boundary is that Developers own the Sprint Backlog plan and adapt it during the Sprint. When the Product Owner or Scrum Master directs individual work, self-management is masked and transparency drops, so the team’s real effectiveness becomes harder to inspect.
In Scrum, Developers decide how to turn selected Product Backlog items into a Done Increment and adapt their plan each day toward the Sprint Goal. That is what makes self-management visible. In this scenario, the Product Owner is crossing into execution decisions and the Scrum Master is acting like a task manager, so stakeholders cannot clearly inspect whether poor results come from weak product decisions, weak execution, or unresolved impediments.
The Scrum Master should help restore the proper boundary: Developers own the Sprint Backlog and its adaptation, the Product Owner focuses on value and Product Backlog ordering, and the Scrum Master serves by coaching, teaching, and removing impediments. Temporary command-and-control may feel safer, but it hides the source of the problem instead of making it transparent.
This restores visible self-management and makes it easier to inspect whether problems come from execution, product decisions, or external impediments.
Topic: Product, Stakeholder, and Technical-Risk Support
A Scrum Team’s Definition of Done already includes integration testing in a production-like environment. For the last three Sprints, Developers complete coding and local tests during the Sprint, but another department controls that environment and only grants access after the Sprint ends. Defects found there create rework and delay usable Increments. The Product Owner suggests moving integration testing into separate Product Backlog items to be done later. Which accountability boundary best fits the Scrum Master’s response?
Best answer: C
Explanation: This is primarily an organizational impediment, not a Product Backlog ordering problem or a missing quality standard. Because the Definition of Done already includes the needed testing, the Scrum Master’s best service is to help remove the external constraint while keeping the technical risk transparent.
The deciding concept is responsibility boundary. Developers own how they build quality into the Increment, and the Product Owner owns the Product Backlog, but the stem shows the key blocker is outside the Scrum Team: another department controls essential test-environment access. Since the Definition of Done already includes integration testing, lowering it would hide risk rather than address it. Moving that work into later Product Backlog items may make deferred work visible, but it still leaves the Increment not fully Done by Sprint end. The Scrum Master serves the organization by helping expose and remove impediments the team cannot solve alone so the team can reliably create a Done Increment each Sprint. The key boundary here is organization-level support, not shifting quality accountability.
The main barrier is an external organizational impediment preventing the team from meeting an existing quality commitment within the Sprint.
Topic: Product, Stakeholder, and Technical-Risk Support
A Scrum Team’s Definition of Done says an Increment is integrated, code reviewed, passes automated regression tests, and has no unresolved critical security findings. In the last two Sprints, compliance and support managers said the team’s “done” work still was not acceptable for release because accessibility evidence and operational readiness checks were missing. The company has no written quality standard. What should the Scrum Master do next?
Best answer: C
Explanation: The next step is to make the mismatch visible and facilitate joint inspection. When stakeholders expect additional quality conditions before release, the Scrum Master should help the Scrum Team and organization compare those expectations with the current Definition of Done and real evidence before changing policy or the DoD.
The first move is to increase transparency, not to dictate a solution. The Definition of Done is the quality commitment for the Increment. Because the organization has no written standard, the Developers own a product-appropriate DoD, and the Scrum Master helps the organization inspect whether its release-quality expectations are compatible with that DoD.
Jumping straight to mandates, temporary exceptions, or redefining Done reduces transparency and delays learning.
This creates transparency about the quality gap so the right people can inspect whether the current DoD or an organizational standard needs adaptation.
Topic: Developing People and Teams
A new Product Owner has struggled to order the Product Backlog when stakeholders push competing requests. Over the last two Sprints, the Scrum Master taught the Product Goal and mentored the Product Owner on using it to guide ordering. In one-on-ones, the Product Owner explains the ideas well, but during refinement still asks, “Can you confirm this order?” before each decision. What should the Scrum Master do next? Select ONE.
Best answer: A
Explanation: The best next step is to inspect learning transfer in actual Product Backlog management. Having the Product Owner make and explain ordering decisions, then debriefing, shows whether the teaching can be applied independently without the Scrum Master taking over.
Teaching or mentoring is effective only when the learner can use the idea in their own decisions. Here, the Product Owner can repeat the concept, but the real test is whether they can apply it while ordering the Product Backlog under normal pressure. The Scrum Master should create a safe opportunity for that application, observe the reasoning, and inspect the result afterward. That supports learning while preserving the Product Owner’s accountability for Product Backlog management.
Staying involved as an approver may feel supportive, but it creates dependency instead of independent understanding.
This tests whether the Product Owner can apply the learning independently in real work while keeping Product Backlog accountability with the Product Owner.
Use this flow when a scenario asks how an experienced Scrum Master should respond to organizational pressure. Strong PSM II answers protect empiricism, accountability, people, and value.
flowchart LR
A["Scrum or organizational problem"] --> B["Make impact transparent"]
B --> C["Coach accountabilities"]
C --> D["Facilitate inspection"]
D --> E["Remove or escalate impediment"]
E --> F["Inspect outcome"]
| Concept | Exam-facing use |
|---|---|
| Servant leadership | Help people understand and use Scrum without taking over ownership. |
| Organizational influence | Address policies and metrics that harm empiricism or value. |
| Accountability clarity | Keep Scrum Master, Product Owner, Developers, and stakeholders distinct. |
| Metric ethics | Avoid measures that drive individual output gaming or local optimization. |
| Coaching response | Use evidence and questions before imposing solutions. |
Use this live PSM II page for web and app access, public sample questions, timed mocks, topic drills, plans, and related PM Mastery exam links.
| Timing | Practice focus | What to review after the set |
|---|---|---|
| Days 7-5 | One 30-question diagnostic plus drills in the weakest advanced Scrum Master areas | Whether misses came from facilitation, coaching, teaching, mentoring, leadership style, or organizational influence |
| Days 4-3 | Mixed messy-situation scenarios | Whether your answer preserves empiricism, self-management, accountability, and learning |
| Days 2-1 | Light review of stance selection, metric anti-patterns, Product Owner support, and organizational impediments | Only recurring traps; do not return to basic Scrum trivia unless it is still failing |
| Exam day | Short warm-up if useful | Choose the least controlling action that creates transparency, inspection, adaptation, and ownership |
If you can score above 75% on several unseen mixed attempts and explain why your Scrum Master stance fits the context, you are likely ready. If you only improve after seeing the same scenarios repeatedly, pause and rehearse the facilitation/coaching reasoning instead of memorizing item patterns.
| If you need to practice… | Best page | Why |
|---|---|---|
| baseline Scrum Guide mechanics first | PSM I | Best current live route before you move into advanced Scrum Master scenarios. |
| Scrum Master decisions with newer AI and governance trade-offs | PSM-AI Essentials | Best live route when facilitation, prompting, and responsible-AI choices matter. |
| product-owner trade-offs that often interact with Scrum Master coaching | PSPO-AI Essentials | Best live route when backlog, stakeholder, and AI-enabled product decisions overlap with coaching judgment. |
| the full Scrum.org family map | Scrum.org hub | Best route when you still need to compare PSM II against PSM III, PAL, or PSF Skills. |
| If you are deciding between… | Main distinction |
|---|---|
| PSM I vs PSM II | PSM I is the baseline Scrum Guide route; PSM II is the advanced Scrum Master route. |
| PSM II vs PSM III | PSM II is advanced; PSM III is the expert-level Scrum Master route. |
| PSM II vs PAL I | PSM II stays close to Scrum Master accountability; PAL I shifts toward leadership and manager support of agile teams. |
Use the live PM Mastery route above if PSM II is the assessment you actually need.