Can the evolution of self-managed, self-motivated, disciplined team in an agile environment make the role of a project manager obsolete?

It is still 1 sprint, dedicated teams are synchronized within the sprint i.e. they may have a joint sprint planning meeting to start the sprint and end with 1 review, an individual team retro and a joint -cross team retro. It is still 1 sprint. And the SM may work with multiple teams. I prefer to say SM "serves" than "manages"

The evolution of the self-managed, self-motivated, disciplined team in an agile environment can make the role of the project manager obsolete.

Can. In an agile environment. With the right flavor(s) of agile.

These are important qualifiers. Not all flavors of agile are scrum-based; a few include the PM role.

Not all companies are able to go full agile. They may need to run hybrid agile/waterfall projects, or run some projects pure agile and others pure waterfall. These companies will still need a PM, although they may not need one for the agile projects.

Scrum is designed to not need a PM. If a company can run pure Scrum, or one of its variants, and cover all the functions usually covered by a PM, a PM will not be needed.

CSM/CSPO classes typically teach you how to run Scrum in an organization that is already running Scrum. They don’t teach you how to transform your organization to an agile organization (and they’re not intended to). Until a full agile transformation is complete, a company is not likely to get away from needing, or thinking they need, project managers.

The biggest reason is perception. It is difficult to change expectations and how things were done, pre-transformation, to how things will work afterward. People may not like how things are going, but they are comfortable with their pain and don’t want different pain.

If a company can make the transition to agile, they may get to the point that the role of PM is no longer needed. Likewise, a company that starts agile from the beginning, may never need a PM.

I'm reminded of the Bible quote:

"No one can serve two masters: Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other." Matthew 6:24

I can easily see how serving two teams could lead to a similar situation. Either you will serve the one that struggles the most, or you will serve the one that gives you the most joy the most.

"Not all companies are able to go full agile. " -

The question is not about agile. The question is, doing whatever you are doing, are you getting the outcomes and results you want? Doing whatever you are doing, are you able to respond to market conditions faster than your competitor ?

If the answers is resounding YES (without any qualifiers), or NO - we don't care (e.g. you are government, but some governments are also moving to Agile) then probably you don't need Agile.

It just happens that Agile is a tool to help the organizations be competitive and responsive.

Ram, I understand what Agile is. Using the principles of Agile would benefit any project, while using a specific flavor of agile does not guarantee success.

However, the question is about agile. The first two words Jaydeep used are, "In SCRUM..."

In Scrum, you don't need the PM role. In other flavors of agile you might. If you're using a hybrid approach you might. The creators of Scrum have made it clear that if you are using Scrum, and using a project manager, you are doing it wrong.

Whether or not a company needs to use agile is a different question. It is also an important question. A company that cannot be honest with itself about why its current processes are failing is likely to fail at agile, as well. Not every company needs to use a flavor of agile; on this point I think we both agree.