Try 10 focused PSM II questions on Evolving the Agile Organization, with answers and explanations, then continue with PM Mastery.
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Exam route | PSM II |
| Topic area | Evolving the Agile Organization |
| Blueprint weight | 16% |
| Page purpose | Focused sample questions before returning to mixed practice |
Use this page to isolate Evolving the Agile Organization for PSM II. Work through the 10 questions first, then review the explanations and return to mixed practice in PM Mastery.
| Pass | What to do | What to record |
|---|---|---|
| First attempt | Answer without checking the explanation first. | The fact, rule, calculation, or judgment point that controlled your answer. |
| Review | Read the explanation even when you were correct. | Why the best answer is stronger than the closest distractor. |
| Repair | Repeat only missed or uncertain items after a short break. | The pattern behind misses, not the answer letter. |
| Transfer | Return to mixed practice once the topic feels stable. | Whether the same skill holds up when the topic is no longer obvious. |
Blueprint context: 16% of the practice outline. A focused topic score can overstate readiness if you recognize the pattern too quickly, so use it as repair work before timed mixed sets.
These questions are original PM Mastery practice items aligned to this topic area. They are designed for self-assessment and are not official exam questions.
Topic: Evolving the Agile Organization
For the last three Sprints, line managers have joined the Daily Scrum and reassigned work to individual Developers whenever someone appears underused. The Developers now wait for direction instead of adapting the Sprint Backlog together, and Sprint Goals are being missed more often. One manager tells the Scrum Master, “This oversight keeps people productive.” What is the best response from the Scrum Master?
Best answer: B
What this tests: Evolving the Agile Organization
Explanation: The best move is to help managers see the effect of their behavior on Scrum Team effectiveness through transparency and facilitated inspection. That preserves managerial accountability while reinforcing that Developers own adapting the Sprint Backlog toward the Sprint Goal.
A PSM II Scrum Master helps managers understand how their behavior affects empiricism and Scrum Team effectiveness without replacing them as managers. In this scenario, the core issue is that utilization-driven task assignment is turning the Daily Scrum into a control point and weakening Developer self-management. The Scrum Master should make that pattern visible with evidence such as missed Sprint Goals and reduced team adaptation, then facilitate a conversation about better ways managers can support outcomes.
The key takeaway is to create learning and transparency, not a new layer of control.
This makes the managers’ impact transparent and helps them learn from evidence without the Scrum Master taking over their authority.
Topic: Evolving the Agile Organization
A Scrum Master is in the first week with an existing Scrum Team after three difficult Sprints.
Exhibit:
- Several Product Backlog items were demonstrated in Sprint Review, but security testing happened after the Sprint, so the work did not meet the Definition of Done.
- The Product Owner often receives urgent sales requests during the Sprint and messages individual Developers, who swap work without discussing Sprint Goal impact.
- Developers report a 4-day queue with a central security team before anything can be released.
- A sales director asks the Scrum Master to assign work and send weekly utilization reports.
What is the most appropriate next step?
Best answer: B
What this tests: Evolving the Agile Organization
Explanation: The first move in a mixed scenario is not to impose rules or jump straight to executives. A Scrum Master should make the current reality transparent with the Scrum Team, inspect the impact on the Sprint Goal and Definition of Done, and then escalate the external impediment with evidence.
This scenario combines team behavior, Product Owner support, technical risk, and organizational pressure. The Scrum Master should first create shared transparency with the people closest to the work rather than solving only one symptom or prescribing a fix immediately. Using evidence from recent Sprints, facilitate inspection of how urgent work enters the Sprint, why demonstrated work is still not Done, and which constraints sit outside the Scrum Team.
That sequence helps the Scrum Team inspect its own behavior around Sprint Goal focus and product communication while also making the external security queue visible as an organizational impediment. Once the facts are clear, the Scrum Master can support adaptations inside the team and escalate the external constraint appropriately. Immediate rule-making, structural fixes, or task assignment skip diagnosis and weaken self-management. The key is inspect first, then adapt and escalate at the right level.
It starts with evidence-based inspection across the mixed issues, preserves self-management, and separates what the team can adapt from what needs organizational escalation.
Topic: Evolving the Agile Organization
A senior leadership group wants a dashboard to compare Scrum Teams. Their draft measures are individual utilization, story points completed, and overtime. One Scrum Team usually creates a Done Increment each Sprint, but Sprint Reviews show limited customer uptake and Developers often wait several days for architecture approval from another department. Which evidence should the Scrum Master make transparent to best support leadership learning about Scrum Team effectiveness?
Best answer: A
What this tests: Evolving the Agile Organization
Explanation: Leadership learns more from evidence that shows value outcomes, delivery effectiveness, and systemic constraints than from activity or efficiency metrics. In this scenario, customer uptake and approval delays already suggest that outcome and organizational-friction evidence will be more useful than utilization, task, or overtime data.
At the organization level, useful transparency helps leaders inspect whether Scrum Teams are delivering valuable outcomes and what conditions are helping or hindering that. Here, the important signals are not how busy people are, but whether the team is meeting Sprint Goals, how stakeholders respond to what is delivered, and how much delay is caused by an external approval step.
That combination makes three things visible:
Measures such as utilization, task updates, or overtime mainly describe activity and can drive local optimization. They do not help leadership learn whether the team is effective in delivering valuable Done Increments or whether the organization is reducing that effectiveness.
This evidence exposes effectiveness through outcomes and quality of delivery while also revealing an organizational impediment affecting the Scrum Team.
Topic: Evolving the Agile Organization
Two Scrum Teams depend on a centralized security review group. Over four Sprints, Sprint Reviews and Retrospectives show most delays came from waiting for that review and from late integration. After a missed release date, a director tells the Scrum Master, “Standardize one mandatory workflow for both teams and enforce it next Sprint so this does not happen again.” What is the best response from the Scrum Master?
Best answer: A
What this tests: Evolving the Agile Organization
Explanation: The best move is to increase transparency around the evidence and help the organization inspect the real cause of delay. A Scrum Master serves the organization by enabling learning and adaptation, not by imposing a standard process because leadership is under pressure.
This scenario tests whether the Scrum Master responds to change pressure with control or with empiricism. The evidence already points to an organization-level impediment: a centralized review bottleneck and late integration. In that situation, the Scrum Master should make the evidence visible and facilitate the right people in inspecting causes, constraints, and possible improvements.
A strong Scrum Master response is to:
Imposing a workflow may look decisive, but it bypasses learning, risks treating symptoms as causes, and can reduce the Scrum Teams’ self-management. The key is helping the organization adapt based on evidence rather than reacting with process enforcement.
It uses transparency and facilitation to address the actual organizational impediment instead of imposing process control.
Topic: Evolving the Agile Organization
A Scrum Team has missed its Sprint Goal in 4 of the last 5 Sprints. In each Sprint, most selected work is coded and locally tested by mid-Sprint, then waits several days for release approval and access to a shared test environment controlled by other departments. Retrospectives keep producing team-level actions such as smaller tasks and tighter Daily Scrums. A senior manager asks the Scrum Master to make the team commit less and send daily status updates. Which response best exposes and addresses the real constraint? Select ONE.
Best answer: B
What this tests: Evolving the Agile Organization
Explanation: The repeated misses are not mainly a team commitment problem. The pattern shows external approvals and environment access are delaying work from becoming Done, so the Scrum Master should make that bottleneck visible and help the organization address it.
This is a common PSM II trap: the symptoms appear inside the Sprint, but the real constraint sits outside the Scrum Team. The work is largely completed by mid-Sprint, and the recurring delay happens in release approval and shared environment access controlled by other departments. In that situation, the Scrum Master serves the organization by increasing transparency around the wait states, showing their effect on the Sprint Goal and Done Increment, and facilitating changes with the involved managers and groups.
Team-level controls can still be useful in other cases, but here they would mainly optimize around the bottleneck instead of removing or reducing it. The stronger response is to inspect the wider system and improve flow where it is actually blocked.
The evidence shows an organizational flow constraint outside the Scrum Team, so the Scrum Master should make it transparent and help change the surrounding system.
Topic: Evolving the Agile Organization
Select ONE. A Scrum Team’s department manager publicly praises one Developer each Sprint for taking sales requests directly, working late, and “personally rescuing delivery.” Over time, other Developers collaborate less, optimize for individual visibility, and reveal integration problems only near the end of the Sprint. In the Sprint Retrospective, the Product Owner says, “This is really a performance issue with one person. We should coach him to behave better.” As Scrum Master, what is the best response?
Best answer: B
What this tests: Evolving the Agile Organization
Explanation: This is primarily a culture and incentive problem, not just an individual performance problem. The best move is to make the reward signals visible and help the Scrum Team and manager inspect how those signals weaken collaboration, transparency, and focus on the Sprint Goal.
When a manager rewards heroics, side work, and individual visibility, people often adapt to that system even if it damages Scrum. In this scenario, the symptoms are broader than one person’s behavior: less collaboration, hidden integration issues, and work entering outside normal team transparency. A Scrum Master serves the organization by making that pattern visible and facilitating a conversation that helps leaders see how their incentives undermine empiricism and the Scrum Team’s effectiveness. That response addresses the cause rather than only the symptom, while preserving the team’s self-management and the Product Owner’s accountability. Private coaching might still help later, but it is secondary if the system continues rewarding the same anti-patterns.
The behavior is being reinforced by the system, so the Scrum Master should expose that organizational pattern and help people inspect its impact on Scrum.
Topic: Evolving the Agile Organization
A company evaluates Developers on individual utilization and the number of Product Backlog items they “close” each Sprint. Since then, Developers have stopped pairing, delayed raising integration problems, and turned the Daily Scrum into personal status defense for their manager. The manager asks the Scrum Master to enforce more detailed individual reporting so targets are met.
Which boundary best fits the Scrum Master’s accountability?
Best answer: B
What this tests: Evolving the Agile Organization
Explanation: The issue is not mainly poor team discipline; it is a management system that rewards local output over openness and shared ownership. The Scrum Master should serve the organization by making that impact transparent and helping managers create conditions that support courage, transparency, and self-management.
This scenario is about an organizational impediment created by incentives and management behavior. When people are measured on individual utilization and personal item closure, they naturally protect their own numbers, which reduces openness, discourages collaboration, and hides quality or integration risk. That weakens empiricism because the Scrum Team is no longer working from transparent reality.
The Scrum Master’s boundary is to help the organization understand and remove conditions that reduce the Scrum Team’s effectiveness. In this case, that means making the effects of the current measures visible and working with managers toward measures and behaviors that support team accountability, learning, and a Done Increment. It does not mean taking over Developers’ planning or the Product Owner’s ordering decisions.
A response focused only on tighter reporting would reinforce the same anti-pattern.
This addresses an organizational impediment that is harming empiricism while preserving Developers’ self-management.
Topic: Evolving the Agile Organization
A company’s leaders introduced a dashboard to compare four Scrum Teams. Teams below the median for two months must present a recovery plan.
Compared metrics:
- Velocity per Developer
- % of selected Product Backlog items finished
- Escaped Defects
Observed effects after 2 months:
- Teams avoid uncertain backlog items
- Integration work is moved outside the Sprint
- Fewer quality concerns are raised in Sprint Reviews
As Scrum Master, what is the best response?
Best answer: B
What this tests: Evolving the Agile Organization
Explanation: The evidence shows the dashboard is changing behavior in harmful ways: teams are hiding risk, avoiding uncertainty, and reducing transparency. The Scrum Master should work with leaders to remove the misuse of metrics, not help teams perform better against a dysfunctional comparison system.
This is an organization-level transparency problem, not a team estimation problem. Leaders are using metrics to compare teams and punish outcomes, so teams are optimizing for the dashboard instead of for value, quality, and empirical learning. The Scrum Master serves the organization by making those effects visible and helping leaders understand that metrics should support inspection and adaptation, not ranking or compliance pressure.
Trying to improve the scores while keeping the same policy would only reinforce the anti-pattern.
This addresses the organizational impediment by changing the punitive use of metrics that is distorting Scrum behavior and reducing transparency.
Topic: Evolving the Agile Organization
A Scrum Team finishes coding most selected work each Sprint, yet every Sprint Review shows several items as “functionally accepted” but not Done. Security testing and release approval are performed by separate departments on a monthly schedule. Managers conclude the team needs better estimation and ask for percentage-complete reporting. As Scrum Master, which response best exposes and addresses the real constraint? Select ONE.
Best answer: A
What this tests: Evolving the Agile Organization
Explanation: The problem is not mainly estimation. The deeper constraint is an organizational quality and release system outside the Scrum Team that prevents a Done Increment each Sprint, so the Scrum Master should increase transparency around that impediment and help remove it without weakening the Definition of Done.
This is a diagnostic trap: the visible symptom is carryover and awkward reporting, but the deeper issue is the organization design around testing and release. Separate departments working on a monthly cadence create accepted-but-undone work, which reduces transparency and weakens empiricism because stakeholders cannot clearly inspect a usable Increment each Sprint.
The Scrum Master should help make the wait states, queues, and undone work visible, keep the Definition of Done intact, and work with the Scrum Team and leaders to remove or integrate the external constraint. That addresses the real system problem rather than tuning around it.
Reducing scope or lengthening the Sprint may hide the issue temporarily, while calling partially tested work Done would make transparency worse.
The recurring carryover is a symptom; the deeper issue is an organizational system that prevents a Done Increment each Sprint and must be made transparent and improved.
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
What this tests: Evolving the Agile Organization
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.
Use the PSM II Practice Test page for the full PM Mastery route, mixed-topic practice, timed mock exams, explanations, and web/mobile app access.
Use the full PM Mastery practice page above for the latest review links and practice route.